PEAR remote viewing - what the data actually shows

[davidsmith73]

No, or more accurately, "it depends". Here's a simple example of how it might pan out:

In a binary data point, the result might be 1 if ANY observation of a phenomenon is made, 0 otherwise. In a variant data point, that may be a grade of how "big" that phenomenon might be, from 0 (not seen) to 9 (huge). So ANY value over zero could be a taken as positive result in a binary measuring system. However the totality of the results in the distributive scoring method might be that they were all usually zero, sometimes 1 and occasionally 2. That is, the scores are a really small fraction of the potential values. However, translating to binary (zero/non-zero) will artifically inflate the results.

Let's try this with 10 made-up scores, from a range of 0-9 each.

1 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 1; Average = 0.09, stddev = 0.0737864787

Let's convert these to zero/non-zero binary, range 0-1.

1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1; Average = 0.35, stddev = 0.241522946

Nearly four times larger "positive" result = artifical inflation. (Thanks, Excel!)

I don't get this. If your method is valid, why didn't the data collected using the distributed or FIDO method and then converted to binary scores inflate the results? (Tables 4 and 5)

 

[Zep]

I think its likely that its real. What each of us means by "remote viewing" is a different story! For example, if real, I think its possible that remote viewers are not in any sense "going to" the location they view. It could be that they are getting their information via ESP. In other words, there just needs to be a novel mechanism whereby information about the location is aquired by the remote viewers brain. Then its a case of perceiving that information via brain activity. The remote viewers could then merely think their mind, consiousness, spirit, whatever, is in some sense at the location, when in fact their brains are just giving this illusion. There are anecdotal reports of people having OBE's and perceiving things that they claim they could not have known. There's doubt to these stories of course, but if true there could be a similar scenario whereby the brain produces this strange alteration of body image and location of the illusiary self (the OBE) and also allows for psi information to be aquired thus "perceiving things they could not have known".

All well and good, but you seem to be starting with the assumption that it is a valid phenomenon, then looking for ways to disprove it. So discussing potential mechanisms how it might work is somewhat premature - there is actually no demonstration that it does actually exist...yet.

And relating that to another as-yet undetermined phenomenon is like, well...I have to say it , mildly amusing. It is "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" stuff.

I think tests for it can be designed. The main flaw the PEAR group made was to perform no randomisation of targets in half their experiments! It also not clear how they performed the randomisation for the other experiments.

True, but that, I'm afraid to say, is just one of their many major protocol shortcomings they would need to address. Even more serious issues, such as potential collusion and poor assessment, need to be addressed. Without them being coralled properly, no amount of randomisation will produce valid results - they would be playing with loaded dice.

 

[Cuddles]

There are anecdotal reports of people having OBE's and perceiving things that they claim they could not have known. There's doubt to these stories of course,

There's more than doubt. There is no evidence that a single one is actually true, but there is plenty of evidence that the things they percieve are created entirely by their own brains, and that often they will make up lies after the fact to support their claims. There has been at least one legal case where a doctor has been accused of putting something inside a patients body, and the patient said they saw it all from the ceiling. In fact, that doctor wasn't even in the hospital at the time. People remember seeing things all the time, and the human brain is notoriously unreliable. The reason you only have anecdotes in support of OBEs is that they involve nothing more that your own brain and so there is no evidence for anything else, other than claims of "My sister's brother's uncle had a heart attack and saw something funny, so it must be true".

 

[T'ai Chi]

There is no evidence that a single one is actually true, but there is plenty of evidence that the things they percieve are created entirely by their own brains,

So you're arguing for solipsism?

 

[davidsmith73]

All well and good, but you seem to be starting with the assumption that it is a valid phenomenon,

I think its likely that its real because there's a body of positive results from experiments that suggest it. I don't mean "remote viewing" but anomalous information transfer.

then looking for ways to disprove it.

I don't understand. How am I disproving what?

So discussing potential mechanisms how it might work is somewhat premature - there is actually no demonstration that it does actually exist...yet.

I disagree. Also, a mechanism needs to be hypothesised at the same time as doing proof oriented experiments so that the validity of the phenomena can be strengthened. Certainty about the existence of the phenomena is increased when you have a mechanism to quantitatively test.

And relating that to another as-yet undetermined phenomenon is like, well...I have to say it , mildly amusing.

I'm relating to a simpler hypothesis. For example if someone suggested that the remote viewers mind leaves his body and travels to the remote location, you have to explain all these things like how the mind leaves the body, how you can justify the separation of mind and brain, how does the mind know where to go etc. This idea just introduces unnecessary elements. Instead, if you simplify and say that the remote viewers brain aquires information about the remote location by as yet unknown means then you aren't assuming anything about separation of mind and body and the ability of the mind to somehow travel in space. I hate to disturb this nest of vipers but a starting point could be to ask whether its possible that a macroscopic system as big as the brain can exhibit nonlocal effects.

 

[davidsmith73]

There's more than doubt. There is no evidence that a single one is actually true,

Quite. You can't go back in time to each case and set up the proper observing conditions! Thats true for anecdotes about any natural phenomena. But you can take these cases and learn something about what might be happening and then conduct a sceintific experiment to test your idea, which is all I'm saying.

but there is plenty of evidence that the things they percieve are created entirely by their own brains, and that often they will make up lies after the fact to support their claims. There has been at least one legal case where a doctor has been accused of putting something inside a patients body, and the patient said they saw it all from the ceiling. In fact, that doctor wasn't even in the hospital at the time.

I'll take your word for that. Remember I'm also suggesting that the things remote viewers perceive are created entirely by their own brains. I'm saying it may be the case that their brains can aquire information from the environment by means we don't know about yet. Couple this with what we know about the brain and its ability to generate the OBE through internal mechanisms, and you might have the illusion that your mind actually is at a remote location.

 

[Cuddles]

I'll take your word for that. Remember I'm also suggesting that the things remote viewers perceive are created entirely by their own brains. I'm saying it may be the case that their brains can aquire information from the environment by means we don't know about yet. Couple this with what we know about the brain and its ability to generate the OBE through internal mechanisms, and you might have the illusion that your mind actually is at a remote location.

But my whole point was that they don't percive anything. Their brain generates an image, that is all. In some cases they claim to have seen things that are proven to be false. This means that either they are lying, or, more likely, they were effectively dreaming and just thought it was real. In no case is there any evidence that their brain aquired any information other than that it already had stored.

I must admit I'm a little confused. You seem to accept that the brain is generating an illusion that is generated internally, and yet somehow you seem to think this is evidence for other senses. If the brain can generate the illusion by itself, at what point is there any need to postulate extra senses?

 

[davidsmith73]

But my whole point was that they don't percive anything. Their brain generates an image, that is all. In some cases they claim to have seen things that are proven to be false. This means that either they are lying, or, more likely, they were effectively dreaming and just thought it was real. In no case is there any evidence that their brain aquired any information other than that it already had stored.

I must admit I'm a little confused. You seem to accept that the brain is generating an illusion that is generated internally, and yet somehow you seem to think this is evidence for other senses. If the brain can generate the illusion by itself, at what point is there any need to postulate extra senses?

If there's reason to believe that information about remote locations or events gets into the brain (and thus becomes integrated into the whole conscious perception) by means that seem impossible according to our current knowledge. Remote viewers claim that's what happens.

 

[Zep]

DS73, the issue at hand which has yet to be demonstrated is that there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that RVer's brains have actually "acquired information from the environment by means we don't know about yet". We can synthesise ideas on potential mechanisms of action until the cows come home, but without at least evidence that it does actually happen, imagination is all that is happening here.

But I do invite you to provide any information to the contrary that has shown proof of this action conclusively that has not been the subject of contention about the validity of the testing protocol used. Detailed reporting would be appreciated.

And please don't point to PEAR - I have been down that road a number of times in the past. Their quality of research in this field leaves much to be desired, primary of which is evidence of any effect, and I know we will not get far past square one if you do invoke their research as even tentative proof.

 

[davidsmith73]

DS73, the issue at hand which has yet to be demonstrated is that there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that RVer's brains have actually "acquired information from the environment by means we don't know about yet". We can synthesise ideas on potential mechanisms of action until the cows come home, but without at least evidence that it does actually happen, imagination is all that is happening here.

But I do invite you to provide any information to the contrary that has shown proof of this action conclusively that has not been the subject of contention about the validity of the testing protocol used. Detailed reporting would be appreciated.

There's quite a few papers here:

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/academic/library.html

My initial issue at hand in this thread was to point out the error in the SkepticReport article. Can you answer my last question?

 

[CFLarsen]

There's quite a few papers here:

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/academic/library.html

Are you saying that there is, in fact, RVer's brains that have actually "acquired information from the environment by means we don't know about yet"?

 

[Cuddles]

If there's reason to believe that information about remote locations or events gets into the brain (and thus becomes integrated into the whole conscious perception) by means that seem impossible according to our current knowledge. Remote viewers claim that's what happens.

Yes, if. Unfortunately for them there isn't any reason to believe this. I claim there's an Invisble Pink Unicorn in my garden, but this doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Cuddles]

There's quite a few papers here:

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/academic/library.html

I may look at this later, but if the second article on that page is at all representative then I won't be expecting any real science.

 

[davidsmith73]

Are you saying that there is, in fact, RVer's brains that have actually "acquired information from the environment by means we don't know about yet"?

No, I'm saying I think there is evidence that information about a remote location or event can be aquired by mechanisms we don't know about yet. It might not have anything to do with brains. Experiments haven't really began investigating that directly. I think its likely that this aquisition of information will involve the brain, just like normal means of aquiring information about remote locations or events.

Also here:

http://www.jsasoc.com/library.html

 

[davidsmith73]

I may look at this later, but if the second article on that page is at all representative then I won't be expecting any real science.

I don't know enough about quantum theory to comment on that paper. What's wrong with it?

 

[Ersby]

I just noticed that the full version of the PEAR paper into remote viewing doesn't seem to be online any more.

Your hypothesis could be supported if the Chicago free response data, or a new set of experiments using free response rather than descriptor formats, were encoded into a distributive analysis and got insignificant results.

In the full paper from 2002, "Information and Uncertainty: 25 Years of Remote Perception Research", they describe how they went back after the drop in results from the FIDO and distributive methods and encoded some of the Chicago trials in the same way. While the results were, for the most part, significant, there was a drop in the z-score of the trials. They also re-scored the Chicago trials according to human judging (ie, matching the notes to the target and decoys) and got lesser results.

Also, I found the paper that lists the 30 descriptors (page 86).

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/89002 - PRP III .pdf

Reading these, one can understand the concerns of Utts, Markwick and Hansen when they say there is room for a subjective interpretation in these descriptors.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, I'm saying I think there is evidence that information about a remote location or event can be aquired by mechanisms we don't know about yet. It might not have anything to do with brains. Experiments haven't really began investigating that directly. I think its likely that this aquisition of information will involve the brain, just like normal means of aquiring information about remote locations or events.

Also here:

http://www.jsasoc.com/library.html

But these mechanisms would necessarily be labelled as paranormal, right?

 

[Zep]

No, I'm saying I think there is evidence that information about a remote location or event can be aquired by mechanisms we don't know about yet. It might not have anything to do with brains. Experiments haven't really began investigating that directly. I think its likely that this aquisition of information will involve the brain, just like normal means of aquiring information about remote locations or events.

Also here:

http://www.jsasoc.com/library.html

Perhaps what you can say is that "there is evidence that information about a remote location or event can be aquired by mechanisms we know but they simply haven't dawned on us yet."

 

[davidsmith73]

But these mechanisms would necessarily be labelled as paranormal, right?

What do you mean by "paranormal"?

 

[CFLarsen]

What do you mean by "paranormal"?

Don't be cheeky. Answer the question.