We Are Not Just a Brain: Why AI Needs to Understand the Whole Human
“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’ … So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him.” — Genesis 1:26–27
I’ll be honest about what this is. I didn’t write these papers, and I haven’t read all 172 of them — not yet. What happened is that I stumbled into this body of research, read through a stack of abstracts, and felt my curiosity catch fire. It caught hard enough that I’m convinced the whole thing is worth reading in full. So I’m sharing the map before I’ve walked every inch of it, because the map itself already changed how I think.
Part of what set me on this path was Gregg Braden’s book Pure Human. It put words to a conviction I already carried but hadn’t fully articulated: the human being is not a rough draft waiting for an upgrade. We are not hardware to be patched, not a transitional species on the way to something “better” made of silicon.
This is where I part ways with transhumanism. I don’t believe our future is about merging with machines or transcending our own biology. I believe machines are meant to serve us — not to become us, and not for us to dissolve into them. We are made in the image and likeness of God. That isn’t a limitation to engineer our way out of. It’s the starting point, and it’s the thing worth protecting.
And here’s what that conviction collides with: we’ve been building AI as if humans are just brains on a stick. As if cognition is all that matters. As if the only thing worth modeling, understanding, and optimizing is what happens between your ears. I think that’s a profound mistake — and the research below is why.
What started as curiosity about the gut-brain connection turned into something much bigger. It turned into a question I believe will define the next era of technology: what are we missing when we reduce a human being to a thinking machine?
The answer, it turns out, is almost everything.
The Three Parts of a Human Being
The idea that we are made of three fundamental parts is not new. It’s actually one of the oldest ideas in human thought.
Plato, writing around 380 BC in The Republic, described the human soul (psyche) as having three parts: the rational (logistikon), the spirited (thumoeides), and the appetitive (epithumetikon). The rational part seeks truth and lives in the head. The spirited part seeks honor and courage and lives in the chest. The appetitive part seeks pleasure and sustenance and lives in the belly. Head, heart, gut. He didn’t have fMRI machines or microbiome sequencing, but somehow he landed on a model that modern neuroscience is now rediscovering with startling precision.
Aristotle took a different angle. In De Anima, he proposed a tripartite soul too: the nutritive soul (shared with plants), the sensitive soul (shared with animals), and the rational soul (unique to humans). Again, a layered model of what it means to be alive and conscious.
The Christian tradition formalized this further into the trichotomy of body, soul, and spirit, drawing from Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians. Hindu philosophy speaks of the gross body (sthula sharira), the subtle body (sukshma sharira), and the causal body (karana sharira). In Islamic philosophy, Al-Ghazali distinguished between the nafs (self/ego), the qalb (heart/spiritual center), and the ruh (spirit).
The point is: across thousands of years, across every major civilization, across philosophies and religions that had no contact with each other, humans kept arriving at the same conclusion. We are not one thing. We are at least three. And each part has its own intelligence, its own way of knowing.
What blows my mind is that modern science is now confirming this with hard data.
Your Gut Has a Brain. Your Heart Has a Brain. This Is Not a Metaphor.
Your gut contains roughly 200 to 500 million neurons. It’s called the enteric nervous system, and it can operate independently of your brain. It coordinates digestion, yes, but it also produces about 90 to 95 percent of your body’s serotonin. It communicates bidirectionally with your brain through the vagus nerve. When researchers transplanted gut bacteria from depressed humans into mice, the mice developed depression-like behaviors. When they cut the vagus nerve, probiotics stopped affecting mood. This is not woo woo. This is published in Nature, Cell, and PNAS.
Your heart contains approximately 40,000 neurons in what’s called the intrinsic cardiac nervous system. J. Andrew Armour coined the term “heart brain” in 1991 and spent decades mapping these neurons. They form local processing networks that can make decisions without the brain’s involvement. Your heart doesn’t just pump blood. It processes information. It sends more signals up to the brain than the brain sends down to it. Heart rate variability research has shown that cardiac rhythms directly influence attention, emotional regulation, and cognitive performance.
And here’s where it gets really interesting: the vagus nerve connects all three. Brain, heart, gut. One continuous information highway. Three processing centers in constant conversation.
This is not philosophy anymore. This is peer-reviewed neuroscience.
So Why Does This Matter for AI?
Here’s my concern. We are building AI systems that model human intelligence as pure computation. Input, processing, output. Pattern recognition, language modeling, reasoning. All brain. All rational. All Plato’s logistikon with nothing else.
But if the research is right, and I believe it is, then human decision-making, human creativity, human intuition, human empathy, and human wisdom emerge from the interplay of at least three intelligent systems. Your gut feeling is not a figure of speech. Your heart telling you something is not just poetry. These are real neural processes generating real information that shapes who you are and how you navigate the world.
When we build AI that only models the brain part, we get systems that are incredibly powerful at certain tasks but fundamentally blind to the full spectrum of human experience. We get tools that can write essays but can’t sense that something is off. That can optimize metrics but can’t feel that a decision is wrong. That can generate content at scale but have no embodied understanding of what it means to be alive.
I’m not saying AI needs a literal gut or a beating heart. I’m saying the opposite, really: the point isn’t to make machines more human. It’s to remember how much more than computation a human already is — and to build tools that serve that fullness instead of flattening it. If we don’t at least understand and account for the whole picture of human intelligence, we’ll keep building technology that serves the head while ignoring the heart and the belly. And that’s a recipe for a future that’s technically impressive but humanly impoverished.
And Then There’s the Weird Stuff
While reading around all of this, I also ran into the more controversial side of consciousness research. Remote viewing. The CIA’s STAR GATE program. The Princeton PEAR lab. Presentiment experiments. Ganzfeld studies.
I want to be honest about this: this stuff sits in a very different scientific category than the gut-brain axis or neurocardiology. It’s contested. The papers are mostly in specialized journals. The skeptical critiques are serious and worth reading. But it’s also true that some of this research was published in Nature and Psychological Bulletin. It’s true that a UC Davis statistics professor reviewed the government’s remote viewing program and concluded the statistical evidence was real. It’s true that 90 replication experiments across 33 laboratories in 14 countries found consistent effects.
I include these papers not because I’m asking you to believe in psychic phenomena. I include them because I think the honest exploration of consciousness requires looking at the full picture, including the parts that make us uncomfortable. If the body has intelligence beyond the brain, how far does that intelligence extend? What are its limits? These are legitimate questions, and dismissing them outright is not science. It’s ideology.
Make up your own mind. Read the proponents and the critics. That’s what the list below is for.
The Research: 172 Papers, Books, and Reports
Everything below is organized so you can explore at your own pace. I’ve marked the most important works with a star (⭐). Each section starts with the foundational work and builds from there. I haven’t read all of it yet myself — but the abstracts alone convinced me it’s worth the journey, and I’d rather hand you the whole map than a curated slice of it.
PART ONE: THE GUT (“The Second Brain”)
Foundational ENS Research
⭐ Gershon MD (1998). The Second Brain: A Groundbreaking New Understanding of Nervous Disorders of the Stomach and Intestine. HarperCollins. The book that coined “the second brain.”
⭐ Furness JB (2012). “The enteric nervous system and neurogastroenterology.” Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 9(5), 286–294.
Furness JB (2006). The Enteric Nervous System. Blackwell Publishing. The definitive textbook.
Furness JB, Callaghan BP, Rivera LR, Cho HJ (2014). “The enteric nervous system and gastrointestinal innervation: integrated local and central control.” Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 817, 39–71.
Spencer NJ, Hu H (2020). “Enteric nervous system: sensory transduction, neural circuits and gastrointestinal motility.” Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 17, 338–351.
Rao M, Gershon MD (2016). “The bowel and beyond: the enteric nervous system in neurological disorders.” Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 13(9), 517–528.
Gershon MD (2013). “5-Hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) in the gastrointestinal tract.” Current Opinion in Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity, 20(1), 14–21.
The Gut-Brain Axis: Core Reviews
⭐ Mayer EA (2011). “Gut feelings: the emerging biology of gut–brain communication.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(8), 453–466.
⭐ Cryan JF, Dinan TG (2012). “Mind-altering microorganisms: the impact of the gut microbiota on brain and behaviour.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(10), 701–712.
⭐ Carabotti M, Scirocco A, Maselli MA, Severi C (2015). “The gut-brain axis: interactions between enteric microbiota, central and enteric nervous systems.” Annals of Gastroenterology, 28(2), 203–209.
⭐ Cryan JF, O’Riordan KJ, Cowan CSM, et al. (2019). “The microbiota-gut-brain axis.” Physiological Reviews, 99(4), 1877–2013. This one is 136 pages. It covers everything. Start here if you only read one paper.
Mayer EA, Nance K, Chen S (2022). “The gut–brain axis.” Annual Review of Medicine, 73, 439–453.
Mayer EA, Tillisch K, Gupta A (2015). “Gut/brain axis and the microbiota.” Journal of Clinical Investigation, 125(3), 926–938.
He Y, Wang K (2024). “Microbiota–gut–brain axis in health and neurological disease.” Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, 28, e70099.
Loh JS, Mak WQ, Tan LK, et al. (2024). “Microbiota–gut–brain axis and its therapeutic applications in neurodegenerative diseases.” Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy, 9, 37.
The Vagus Nerve: The Highway Between Gut and Brain
⭐ Bravo JA, Forsythe P, Chew MV, et al. (2011). “Ingestion of Lactobacillus strain regulates emotional behavior and central GABA receptor expression in a mouse via the vagus nerve.” PNAS, 108(38), 16050–16055. They cut the vagus nerve and the probiotic effects on the brain disappeared. Landmark study.
Bonaz B, Bazin T, Pellissier S (2018). “The vagus nerve at the interface of the microbiota-gut-brain axis.” Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12, 49.
Yu CD, Xu QJ, Chang RB (2020). “Vagal sensory neurons and gut-brain signaling.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 62, 133–140.
Cao Y, Li R, Bai L (2024). “Vagal sensory pathway for the gut-brain communication.” Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, 156, 228–243.
Forsythe P, Bienenstock J, Kunze WA (2014). “Vagal pathways for microbiome-brain-gut axis communication.” Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 817, 115–133.
Gut Microbiome and Serotonin Production
⭐ Yano JM, Yu K, Donaldson GP, et al. (2015). “Indigenous bacteria from the gut microbiota regulate host serotonin biosynthesis.” Cell, 161(2), 264–276. Proof that your gut bacteria directly control serotonin production.
Clarke G, Stilling RM, Kennedy PJ, et al. (2014). “Minireview: Gut microbiota: the neglected endocrine organ.” Molecular Endocrinology, 28(8), 1221–1238.
Reigstad CS, Salmonson CE, Rainey JF, et al. (2015). “Gut microbes promote colonic serotonin production through an effect of short-chain fatty acids on enterochromaffin cells.” FASEB Journal, 29(4), 1395–1403.
O’Mahony SM, Clarke G, Borre YE, et al. (2015). “Serotonin, tryptophan metabolism and the brain-gut-microbiome axis.” Behavioural Brain Research, 277, 32–48.
Microbiome, Depression, and Mental Health
⭐ Valles-Colomer M, Falony G, Darzi Y, et al. (2019). “The neuroactive potential of the human gut microbiota in quality of life and depression.” Nature Microbiology, 4, 623–632. Large population study linking specific gut bacteria to depression.
⭐ Zheng P, Zeng B, Zhou C, et al. (2016). “Gut microbiome remodeling induces depressive-like behaviors through a pathway mediated by the host’s metabolism.” Molecular Psychiatry, 21, 786–796. They transplanted gut bacteria from depressed humans into mice. The mice got depressed.
Radjabzadeh D, Bosch JA, Uitterlinden AG, et al. (2022). “Gut microbiome-wide association study of depressive symptoms.” Nature Communications, 13, 7128.
Kelly JR, Borre Y, O’Brien C, et al. (2016). “Transferring the blues: Depression-associated gut microbiota induces neurobehavioural changes in the rat.” Journal of Psychiatric Research, 82, 109–118.
Foster JA, McVey Neufeld K-A (2013). “Gut–brain axis: how the microbiome influences anxiety and depression.” Trends in Neurosciences, 36(5), 305–312.
Huang F, Wu X (2021). “Brain neurotransmitter modulation by gut microbiota in anxiety and depression.” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 9, 649103.
Germ-Free Animal Studies (The Causal Evidence)
⭐ Sudo N, Chida Y, Aiba Y, et al. (2004). “Postnatal microbial colonization programs the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal system for stress response in mice.” Journal of Physiology, 558(1), 263–275. Foundational proof that gut microbiota shape the stress response.
Luczynski P, McVey Neufeld KA, Oriach CS, et al. (2016). “Growing up in a bubble: using germ-free animals to assess the influence of the gut microbiota on brain and behavior.” International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology, 19(8), pyw020.
Diaz Heijtz R, Wang S, Anuar F, et al. (2011). “Normal gut microbiota modulates brain development and behavior.” PNAS, 108(7), 3047–3052.
Neufeld KM, Kang N, Bienenstock J, Foster JA (2011). “Reduced anxiety-like behavior and central neurochemical change in germ-free mice.” Neurogastroenterology and Motility, 23(3), 255–264.
Probiotics, Psychobiotics, and Interventions
⭐ Dinan TG, Stanton C, Cryan JF (2013). “Psychobiotics: a novel class of psychotropic.” Biological Psychiatry, 74(10), 720–726. The paper that coined “psychobiotics.”
Sarkar A, Lehto SM, Harty S, et al. (2016). “Psychobiotics and the manipulation of bacteria–gut–brain signals.” Trends in Neurosciences, 39(11), 763–781.
Wallace CJK, Milev R (2017). “The effects of probiotics on depressive symptoms in humans: a systematic review.” Annals of General Psychiatry, 16, 14.
Liu RT, Walsh RFL, Sheehan AE (2019). “Prebiotics and probiotics for depression and anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 102, 13–23.
Gut-Brain Axis in Neurological Disease
Sampson TR, Debelius JW, Thron T, et al. (2016). “Gut microbiota regulate motor deficits and neuroinflammation in a model of Parkinson’s disease.” Cell, 167(6), 1469–1480.
Scheperjans F, Aho V, Pereira PAB, et al. (2015). “Gut microbiota are related to Parkinson’s disease and clinical phenotype.” Movement Disorders, 30(3), 350–358.
Vogt NM, Kerby RL, Dill-McFarland KA, et al. (2017). “Gut microbiome alterations in Alzheimer’s disease.” Scientific Reports, 7, 13537.
Sharon G, Cruz NJ, Kang DW, et al. (2019). “Human gut microbiota from autism spectrum disorder promote behavioral symptoms in mice.” Cell, 177(6), 1600–1618.
PART TWO: THE HEART (“The Little Brain”)
Foundational ICNS Research (Armour and Colleagues)
⭐ Armour JA (1991). “Intrinsic cardiac neurons.” Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 2(4), 331–341. The original paper discovering the “heart brain.”
⭐ Armour JA (2008). “Potential clinical relevance of the ’little brain’ on the mammalian heart.” Experimental Physiology, 93(2), 165–176.
Armour JA (2004). “Cardiac neuronal hierarchy in health and disease.” American Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 287(2), R262–R271.
Armour JA (1999). “Myocardial ischaemia and the cardiac nervous system.” Cardiovascular Research, 41(1), 41–54.
Armour JA, Murphy DA, Yuan BX, et al. (1997). “Gross and microscopic anatomy of the human intrinsic cardiac nervous system.” Anatomical Record, 247, 289–298.
Hopkins DA, Macdonald SE, Murphy DA, Armour JA (2000). “Pathology of intrinsic cardiac neurons from ischemic human hearts.” Anatomical Record, 259(4), 424–436.
Neurocardiology Reviews and Cardiac Neural Control
⭐ Ardell JL, Armour JA (2016). “Neurocardiology: Structure-Based Function.” Comprehensive Physiology, 6(4), 1635–1653. The definitive modern review.
⭐ Shivkumar K, Ajijola OA, Anand I, Armour JA, et al. (2016). “Clinical neurocardiology defining the value of neuroscience-based cardiovascular therapeutics.” Journal of Physiology, 594(14), 3911–3954.
⭐ Ardell JL, Andresen MC, Armour JA, et al. (2016). “Translational neurocardiology: preclinical models and cardioneural integrative aspects.” Journal of Physiology, 594(14), 3877–3909.
Hanna P, Ardell JL (2024). “Cardiac neuroanatomy and fundamentals of neurocardiology.” Cardiac Electrophysiology Clinics, 16(3), 229–237.
Hadaya J, Ardell JL (2020). “Autonomic modulation for cardiovascular disease.” Frontiers in Physiology, 11, 617459.
Herring N, Ardell JL, et al. (2025). “Neurocardiology: translational advancements and potential.” Journal of Physiology, 603(7), 1635–1670.
Gupta N, et al. (2025). “Biophysical modelling of intrinsic cardiac nervous system neuronal electrophysiology based on single-cell transcriptomics.” Journal of Physiology, doi: 10.1113/JP287595.
Jänig W (2016). “Neurocardiology: a neurobiologist’s perspective.” Journal of Physiology, 594(14), 3839–3841.
Heart-Brain Communication and Cardiac Afferents
Beaumont E, Salavatian S, Southerland EM, et al. (2013). “Network interactions within the canine intrinsic cardiac nervous system.” Journal of Physiology, 591, 4515–4533.
Rajendran PS, Nakamura K, Ajijola OA, et al. (2016). “Myocardial infarction induces structural and functional remodelling of the intrinsic cardiac nervous system.” Journal of Physiology, 594, 321–341.
Salavatian S, Beaumont E, Longpré JP, et al. (2016). “Vagal stimulation targets select populations of intrinsic cardiac neurons to control neurally induced atrial fibrillation.” American Journal of Physiology: Heart and Circulatory Physiology, 311, H1311–H1320.
Thompson GW, Collier K, Ardell JL, et al. (2000). “Functional interdependence of neurons in a single canine intrinsic cardiac ganglionated plexus.” Journal of Physiology, 528, 561–571.
Gordan R, Gwathmey JK, Xie LH (2015). “Autonomic and endocrine control of cardiovascular function.” World Journal of Cardiology, 7(4), 204–214.
Heart Rate Variability and the Brain-Heart Connection
⭐ Thayer JF, Åhs F, Fredrikson M, Sollers JJ, Wager TD (2012). “A meta-analysis of heart rate variability and neuroimaging studies.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(2), 747–756.
⭐ Thayer JF, Lane RD (2009). “Claude Bernard and the heart-brain connection: Further elaboration of a model of neurovisceral integration.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 33(2), 81–88. The neurovisceral integration model.
Laborde S, Mosley E, Thayer JF (2017). “Heart rate variability and cardiac vagal tone in psychophysiological research.” Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 213.
Forte G, Favieri F, Casagrande M (2019). “Heart rate variability and cognitive function: a systematic review.” Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 710.
Kemp AH, Quintana DS (2013). “The relationship between mental and physical health: Insights from the study of heart rate variability.” International Journal of Psychophysiology, 89(3), 288–296.
Mather M, Thayer JF (2018). “How heart rate variability affects emotion regulation brain networks.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 19, 98–104.
Nikolova YS, Bogdan R, Goel N, et al. (2023). “Neuroimaging studies of the neural correlates of heart rate variability: a systematic review.” Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(3), 1016.
Polyvagal Theory (and Its Critiques)
⭐ Porges SW (1995). “Orienting in a defensive world: Mammalian modifications of our evolutionary heritage. A Polyvagal Theory.” Psychophysiology, 32(4), 301–318.
Porges SW (2001). “The polyvagal theory: phylogenetic substrates of a social nervous system.” International Journal of Psychophysiology, 42(2), 123–146.
Porges SW (2007). “The polyvagal perspective.” Biological Psychology, 74(2), 116–143.
Porges SW (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-regulation. W.W. Norton.
Porges SW (2025). “Polyvagal theory: current status, clinical applications, and future directions.” Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 22(3), 169–184.
⭐ Grossman P, et al. (2026). “Why the polyvagal theory is untenable.” Clinical Neuropsychiatry. A major critique signed by 39 researchers.
Porges SW (2026). “When a critique becomes untenable: A scholarly response to Grossman et al.” Porges’ formal rebuttal.
PART THREE: THE INTEGRATED SYSTEM (Brain + Heart + Gut)
The Vagus Nerve as the Central Highway
⭐ Bonaz BL, Bernstein CN (2013). “Brain-gut interactions in inflammatory bowel disease.” Gastroenterology, 144(1), 36–49.
Benarroch EE (1993). “The central autonomic network: functional organization, dysfunction, and perspective.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 68(10), 988–1001. Foundational description of the central autonomic network.
de Lartigue G (2016). “Role of the vagus nerve in the development and treatment of diet-induced obesity.” Journal of Physiology, 594(20), 5791–5815.
Bonaz B, Sinniger V, Pellissier S (2021). “Therapeutic potential of vagus nerve stimulation for inflammatory bowel diseases.” Frontiers in Neuroscience, 15, 650971.
Interoception: How the Body Talks to the Brain
⭐ Craig AD (2002). “How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(8), 655–666. Foundational paper.
Craig AD (2009). “How do you feel now? The anterior insula and human awareness.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(1), 59–70.
Khalsa SS, Adolphs R, Cameron OG, et al. (2018). “Interoception and mental health: a roadmap.” Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 3(6), 501–513.
Garfinkel SN, Seth AK, Barrett AB, et al. (2015). “Knowing your own heart: distinguishing interoceptive accuracy from interoceptive awareness.” Biological Psychology, 104, 65–74.
Stress, HPA Axis, and Multi-Organ Communication
Dinan TG, Cryan JF (2017). “The microbiome-gut-brain axis in health and disease.” Gastroenterology Clinics of North America, 46(1), 77–89.
Ulrich-Lai YM, Herman JP (2009). “Neural regulation of endocrine and autonomic stress responses.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 397–409.
Dhabhar FS (2014). “Effects of stress on immune function: the good, the bad, and the beautiful.” Immunologic Research, 58(2–3), 193–210.
Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (The Causal Evidence)
Kurokawa S, Kishimoto T, Mizuno S, et al. (2018). “The effect of fecal microbiota transplantation on psychiatric symptoms.” Journal of Affective Disorders, 235, 506–512.
Cai T, et al. (2023). “Fecal microbiota transplantation relieve chronic unpredictable mild stress-induced depression in rats.”
Current landscape of fecal microbiota transplantation in treating depression (2024). Frontiers in Immunology, 15, 1410928.
Clinical Implications and Therapeutic Frontiers
Mayer EA, Labus JS, Tillisch K, et al. (2015). “Towards a systems view of IBS.” Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 12(10), 592–605.
Evrensel A, Ceylan ME (2015). “The gut-brain axis: the missing link in depression.” Clinical Psychopharmacology and Neuroscience, 13(3), 239–244.
Bretherton B, Atkinson L, Murray A, et al. (2019). “Effects of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation in individuals aged 55 years or above.” Aging, 11(14), 4836–4857.
Colzato L, Beste C (2020). “A literature review on the neurophysiological underpinnings and cognitive effects of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation.” Journal of Neurophysiology, 123(5), 1739–1755.
PART FOUR: REMOTE VIEWING AND ANOMALOUS COGNITION
A note before we go here: this section covers research that is genuinely controversial. Unlike Parts One through Three, which are mainstream neuroscience, the work below sits at the edges of accepted science. I include both the proponent papers and the skeptical critiques because I think you deserve to see the full picture and decide for yourself.
The SRI Program (Stanford Research Institute, 1972 to 1985)
⭐ Targ R and Puthoff HE (1974). “Remote Viewing of Natural Targets.” Presented at Conference on Quantum Physics and Parapsychology, Geneva. Declassified CIA document available at: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00787R000500410001-3.pdf
⭐ Targ R and Puthoff HE (1974). “Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding.” Nature, 251, 602–607. Published in one of the world’s top science journals.
Puthoff HE and Targ R (1976). “A perceptual channel for information transfer over kilometer distances.” Proceedings of the IEEE, 64(3), 329–354.
Tart CT, Puthoff HE, and Targ R (1980). “Information transmission in remote viewing experiments.” Nature, 284, 191.
Puthoff HE and Targ R (1981). “Rebuttal of criticisms of remote viewing experiments.” Nature, 292(5821), 388.
Puthoff HE and Targ R (1973). “Perceptual Augmentation Techniques.” Technical Proposal SRI No. ISH 73-146.
Puthoff HE and Targ R (1975). “Perceptual Augmentation Techniques.” SRI Project 3183, Final Report. Declassified July 1995.
Puthoff HE, Targ R, and Tart CT (1979). “Resolution in Remote Viewing Studies: Mini and Micro Studies.” SRI International.
Puthoff HE (1996). “CIA-initiated remote viewing program at Stanford Research Institute.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10(1), 63–76.
“Clairvoyant Remote Viewing” and Historical Overviews
⭐ Srinivasan M (2002). “Clairvoyant Remote Viewing: The US Sponsored Psychic Spying.” Strategic Analysis, 26(1), 68–89. Full text: https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/sa/sa_jan02srm01.html
⭐ Targ R (2019). “What Do We Know About Psi? The First Decade of Remote Viewing Research and Operations at Stanford Research Institute.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 33(4). Available at: https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/1669
The SAIC Program (1985 to 1995)
May EC, Utts JM, Humphrey BS, et al. (1990). “Advances in remote-viewing analysis.” Journal of Parapsychology, 54, 193–228.
May EC, Spottiswoode SJP, James CL (1994). “Shannon entropy: A possible intrinsic target property.” Journal of Parapsychology, 58, 384–401.
May EC, Lantz ND, and Piantineda T (1996). “Feedback and target characteristics.” SRI International Report.
May EC (2011). “Anomalous cognition: Two protocols for data collection and analyses.” Explore, 7(3), 171–181.
The STAR GATE Evaluation (1995)
⭐ Mumford MD, Rose AM, and Goslin DA (1995). “An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications.” American Institutes for Research. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00791r000200180005-5
⭐ Utts JM (1996). “An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10(1), 3–30. The statistician concluded the evidence was real.
⭐ Hyman R (1996). “Evaluation of a program on anomalous mental phenomena.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10(1), 31–58. The skeptic acknowledged statistical anomalies but cited methodological problems.
Utts JM (1996). “Response to Ray Hyman’s report.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10(1), 59–62.
Princeton PEAR Lab (1979 to 2007)
⭐ Jahn RG and Dunne BJ (1987). Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
⭐ Dunne BJ and Jahn RG (2003). “Information and uncertainty in remote perception research.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 17(2), 207–241.
Jahn RG, Dunne BJ, and Nelson RD (1987). “Engineering anomalies research.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1(1), 15–26.
Jahn RG, Dunne BJ, Dobyns YH, Nelson RD, and Bradish GJ (1997). “Correlations of random binary sequences with pre-stated operator intention.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 11(3), 345–367.
Dunne BJ, Dobyns YH, and Intner SM (1989). “Precognitive remote perception, III.” PEAR Technical Report 89002.
Dunne BJ and Jahn RG (1992). “Experiments in remote human/machine interaction.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 6(4), 311–332.
Dunne BJ (1998). “Gender differences in human/machine anomalies.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 12(1), 3–55.
Dunne BJ and Jahn RG (1995). “Consciousness and anomalous physical phenomena.” PEAR Technical Note 95004.
Dobyns YH, Dunne BJ, Jahn RG, and Nelson RD (2004). “The MegaREG experiment.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 18(3), 369–397.
Jahn RG (2001). “The challenge of consciousness.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 15(4), 443–457.
Precognition and Presentiment Research
⭐ Bem DJ (2011). “Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 407–425. Available at: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/psp-a0021524.pdf
⭐ Bem DJ, Tressoldi P, Rabeyron T, and Duggan M (2016). “Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events.” F1000Research, 4, 1188. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706048/
⭐ Mossbridge JA, Tressoldi P, and Utts JM (2012). “Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis.” Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 390.
Radin DI (2004). “Electrodermal presentiments of future emotions.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 18(2), 253–273.
Radin DI (1997). “Unconscious perception of future emotions.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 11(2), 163–180.
Radin DI and Schlitz MJ (2005). “Gut feelings, intuition, and emotions.” Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 11(1), 85–91.
Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews
⭐ Tressoldi P and Katz DL (2023). “Remote viewing: A 1974–2022 systematic review and meta-analysis.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 37(3).
⭐ Storm L, Tressoldi PE, and Di Risio L (2010). “Meta-analysis of free-response studies, 1992–2008.” Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 471–485.
Milton J and Wiseman R (1999). “Does psi exist? Lack of replication of an anomalous process of information transfer.” Psychological Bulletin, 125(4), 387–391.
Storm L, Tressoldi PE, and Di Risio L (2010). “Comment on Milton and Wiseman (1999).” Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 491–494.
Honorton C and Ferrari DC (1989). “Future telling: A meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition experiments, 1935–1987.” Journal of Parapsychology, 53, 281–308.
Ganzfeld Experiments
⭐ Honorton C (1985). “Meta-analysis of psi ganzfeld research.” Journal of Parapsychology, 49, 51–91.
⭐ Bem DJ and Honorton C (1994). “Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer.” Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 4–18.
Roe CA, Cooper CE, Hickinbotham L, et al. (2020). “Performance at a precognitive remote viewing task, with and without ganzfeld stimulation.” Journal of Parapsychology, 84(1), 38–65.
Hyman R and Honorton C (1986). “A joint communiqué: The psi ganzfeld controversy.” Journal of Parapsychology, 50, 351–364.
Remote Viewing in Archaeology
⭐ Schwartz SA (2019). “The location and reconstruction of a Byzantine structure in Marea, Egypt.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 33(3).
Schwartz SA (1978). The Secret Vaults of Time: Psychic Archaeology and the Quest for Man’s Beginnings. Grosset and Dunlap.
Schwartz SA (2015). “Through time and space: The evidence for remote viewing.” In Extrasensory Perception (ed. May and Marwaha). Praeger.
Schwartz SA (2007). Opening to the Infinite. Nemoseen Media.
Dean Radin and IONS Research
Radin DI and Nelson RD (1989). “Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems.” Foundations of Physics, 19(12), 1499–1514.
Radin DI and Ferrari DC (1991). “Effects of consciousness on the fall of dice: A meta-analysis.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 5(1), 61–83.
Radin DI (2006). “Experiments testing models of mind-matter interaction.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 20(3), 375–401.
Radin D, Michel L, Galdamez K, et al. (2012). “Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments.” Physics Essays, 25(2), 157–171.
Radin D, Schlitz M, and Baur C (2015). “Distant healing intention therapies.” Global Advances in Health and Medicine, 4(Suppl), 67–71.
⭐ Radin DI (1997). The Conscious Universe. HarperOne.
⭐ Radin DI (2006). Entangled Minds. Simon and Schuster.
Radin DI (2013). Supernormal. Random House.
Radin DI (2018). Real Magic. Penguin Random House.
Radin DI (2025). The Science of Magic. Penguin Random House.
The Critiques (Essential Reading for Balance)
⭐ Marks D and Kammann R (1980). The Psychology of the Psychic. Prometheus Books. Argued SRI experiments had serious flaws.
⭐ Hyman R (1985). “The ganzfeld psi experiment: A critical appraisal.” Journal of Parapsychology, 49, 3–49.
⭐ Wagenmakers E-J, Wetzels R, Borsboom D, and van der Maas HLJ (2011). “Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 426–432.
Ritchie SJ, Wiseman R, and French CC (2012). “Failing the future: Three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem’s ‘retroactive facilitation of recall’ effect.” PLoS ONE, 7(3), e33423.
Alcock JE (2003). “Give the null hypothesis a chance.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(6–7), 29–50.
Wiseman R and Milton J (1998). “Experiment one of the SAIC remote viewing program: A critical re-evaluation.” Journal of Parapsychology, 62(4), 297–308.
Galak J, LeBoeuf RA, Nelson LD, and Simmons JP (2012). “Correcting the past: Failures to replicate psi.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(6), 933–948.
Rouder JN and Morey RD (2011). “A Bayes factor meta-analysis of Bem’s ESP claim.” Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(4), 682–689.
Theoretical Frameworks
Stapp HP (2007). Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer. Springer.
Josephson BD and Pallikari-Viras F (1991). “Biological utilisation of quantum nonlocality.” Foundations of Physics, 21(2), 197–207.
Walach H and von Stillfried N (2011). “Generalised quantum theory.” Axiomathes, 21(2), 185–209.
May EC and Marwaha SB (eds.) (2018). The Star Gate Archives. 4 volumes. McFarland.
Operational Remote Viewing Accounts
McMoneagle J (1993). Mind Trek. Hampton Roads.
McMoneagle J (2000). Remote Viewing Secrets. Hampton Roads.
Swann I (1996). “Remote viewing: the real story.”
Smith PH (2005). Reading the Enemy’s Mind: Inside Star Gate. Forge Books.
Global Consciousness Project
Nelson RD, Radin DI, Shoup R, and Bancel PA (2002). “Correlations of continuous random data with major world events.” Foundations of Physics Letters, 15(6), 537–550.
Nelson RD (2001). “Correlation of global events with REG data.” Journal of Parapsychology, 65(3), 247–271.
Bancel PA and Nelson RD (2008). “The GCP event experiment.” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 22(3), 309–333.
Final Thought
We are not just brains. We never were. Every ancient tradition knew this, every scripture that calls us made in the image of God assumes it, and now modern science is catching up, one peer-reviewed paper at a time.
The question is whether we’ll remember this as we build the most powerful technology in human history. AI doesn’t need a gut or a heart — and it doesn’t need to become human. We are already that. The work isn’t to upgrade ourselves into machines or to bow to them. It’s to keep them in their place: as tools that serve the whole human being, head and heart and gut, body and soul and spirit.
I haven’t read all 172 of these yet. But the abstracts were enough to convince me the journey is worth taking, and I’d rather share the door than wait until I’ve walked through every room. Read widely. Read the believers and the skeptics. Trust your gut. Listen to your heart. And yes, use your brain too.
All three of them.