• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has remote viewing already been tested?

Chemical_Penguin

Student
C
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
38
Just joined this forum and I was looking around in the forums and didn't see anything on remote viewing (although I'm sure there are ppl on this forum who've been here for years and have already discussed it) but I was just curious as to what conclusions were drawn about why Remote Viewing is a fraud.

I myself have tried remote-viewing and got it to work a few times out of many failures. Just incase anyone wants an example here's detail of the first time I succeeded:

(this was done over webcam w/ my girlfriend)
I had my girlfriend place an object in a box then I'd turn off the computer, lights, tv, cover the windows in my room w/ blankets and then lay on my bed and remotely view what was in the box. The first 3 or so times I failed but I finally succeeded when I "saw" a blue vase/large-cup with a red picture on the side of it. And it turned out the item in the box was a blue sports bottle w/o the lid and the words "Reebok" in red printed on the side.

Very possible this might be coincidence even though it's highly unlikely, it's not impossible. But anyways, I was amazed by my first success, so just wanted to know what was wrong w/ this Remote Viewing business.
 
Chemical_Penguin said:
Just joined this forum and I was looking around in the forums and didn't see anything on remote viewing (although I'm sure there are ppl on this forum who've been here for years and have already discussed it) but I was just curious as to what conclusions were drawn about why Remote Viewing is a fraud.

I myself have tried remote-viewing and got it to work a few times out of many failures. Just incase anyone wants an example here's detail of the first time I succeeded:

(this was done over webcam w/ my girlfriend)
I had my girlfriend place an object in a box then I'd turn off the computer, lights, tv, cover the windows in my room w/ blankets and then lay on my bed and remotely view what was in the box. The first 3 or so times I failed but I finally succeeded when I "saw" a blue vase/large-cup with a red picture on the side of it. And it turned out the item in the box was a blue sports bottle w/o the lid and the words "Reebok" in red printed on the side.

Very possible this might be coincidence even though it's highly unlikely, it's not impossible. But anyways, I was amazed by my first success, so just wanted to know what was wrong w/ this Remote Viewing business.
Click to expand...
Start here:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15541

and then go here:

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
 
Chemical_Penguin said:
I myself have tried remote-viewing and got it to work a few times out of many failures.
Click to expand...

You really can't judge things like this. Too vague. If you don't state how many attempts you made, and how accurate you were each time, and how likely you were to suspect a particular object*, we really can't say whether your results are better than we would expect from chance alone.

*As you go on to say, sometimes objects were selected by your girlfriend for you to remote view. This'll cut down the possible options big-time. Here's why:

1) You know the object is going to be something your girlfriend owns. You've probably seen it before.
2) It's going to be something she has handy. Something which is likely to grab her attention, and you'll be subconsciously aware of this.
3) Something small which will fit in the box.

Etcetera.

Chemical_Penguin said:
Just incase anyone wants an example here's detail of the first time I succeeded:

(this was done over webcam w/ my girlfriend)
I had my girlfriend place an object in a box then I'd turn off the computer, lights, tv, cover the windows in my room w/ blankets and then lay on my bed and remotely view what was in the box. The first 3 or so times I failed but I finally succeeded when I "saw" a blue vase/large-cup with a red picture on the side of it. And it turned out the item in the box was a blue sports bottle w/o the lid and the words "Reebok" in red printed on the side.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem that impressive. A sports bottle is not a vase or large cup. The word "Reebok" is not really a picture as you would have imagined it.

I wouldn't say this attempt shows you have amazing remote viewing abilities. Especially not after three failed attempts.

Chemical_Penguin said:
Very possible this might be coincidence even though it's highly unlikely, it's not impossible.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, I'm baffled why you would think it's extremely unlikely to be a coincidence.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Chemical_Penguin said:
But anyways, I was amazed by my first success, so just wanted to know what was wrong w/ this Remote Viewing business.
Click to expand...

It's not what's wrong with it so much as what's right with it.

Very little, in my opinion.
 
Your experiment is flawed, subect to judging bias. Since when is a vase a water bottle?

You can remove that bias, easily. Pick 4 (say) objects. Both you and the chooser know what the 4 objects are. Using flipped coins or other random method, one of these items are chosen to be RVed for each trial. You RV the box, and (here comes the important bit) *decide yourself* which of the 4 objects were in the box.

After many trials, do a statistical analysis of the results.

Tested in this way, RV fails. Tested as you do it, where a judge can decide that there was a match, RV succeeds. Unavoidable conclusion - RV hasn't been proven to work, and judges are biased.
 
Also, be careful about carrying on testing until you get a hit and then stopping. You need to carry out a good number of trials (e.g. 100).

With the experiment as you describe it, you might have "got lucky" on the fourth attempt, but then drawn a blank for the next fifty, giving you a somewhat less impressive hit rate. Alternatively, you might have got a hit every time after that, confirming your psychic abilities and launching a successful career ;)
 
roger said:

After many trials, do a statistical analysis of the result
Click to expand...

Pick in advance the number of tests you plan to run.

The big problem with doing something like this right is that it's not nearly as fun as goofing off with the girlfriend.
 
Thnx all for the replies.

Your experiment is flawed, subect to judging bias. Since when is a vase a water bottle?
Click to expand...

a sports bottle! not a water bottle like an Ozarka or Evian bottle. It was one of those sports bottle with the "squirt" top that you squeeze. Only hers, as I mentioned, didn't have the top on, it was missing. So it was a slender cylinder shape with an opening, basically the shape of a large cup.

Doesn't seem that impressive. A sports bottle is not a vase or large cup. The word "Reebok" is not really a picture as you would have imagined it.
Click to expand...

I said the word vase because that's what i told my g/f because that was the shape I "saw" and I saw a long and slender cylinder shape w/ an opening at the top, I knew it was big but not sure how big, and that shape (in my mind) could either be a large cup or a vase.

As for the red picture, that is what remote viewing is, you don't see something in super detail, you see a glimpse or as long as you can hold the mental picture. Perhaps artists or people more visual can hold a mental picture for a long time to see it in detial, I however draw stick-figure cats that look like giraffes and can only hold visual thoughts for maybe a nano-second. So basically I saw a blue moderately large cylinder with an opening at the top and something small and red on the on side of it.

From what I've read, I'm baffled why you would think it's extremely unlikely to be a coincidence.
Click to expand...

Because I matched both the general shape AND the colors correctly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps it is true that subconsiously i thought a cup would be something probably put into the box, but as for having the colors correct AND in their correct positions on the object I was amazed and the odds of "guessing" all 3 of those details from being totally blind to the object IS unlikely. Whether remote viewing is a sham or not, that's my experience w/ it. I haven't practiced it much more, and if it is a sham I'm sure it'll become painfully obvious with more attempts.

Anways thnx Roger for the statistical input I didn't think of that (obviously) and also I found a site here http://www.air.org/pubs/remote.pdf which seems to be very credible and from reading the first fourth of it seems to be very clear that remote viewing either doesn't exist or is a phenoma that grants info too vague to really do anything with.

EDIT: Didn't want to forget to thank Hexxenhammer, CFLarsen, and Psiload for the useful links.
 
penguin,

it sounds reasonable to me.

i think that the audience here is extremely biased. they have a view of the world as they want it and no matter the evidence it gets dismissed.

at this point i am not certain if remote viewing is possible but from what i read so far i think it is very possible.
 
I would say the audience here is sceptical, although some are probably close minded. All anyone wants is proof.

Do the tests as above described. If you do well enough, apply for the million.

Good luck. :)
 
olaf said:
penguin,

it sounds reasonable to me.

i think that the audience here is extremely biased. they have a view of the world as they want it and no matter the evidence it gets dismissed.

at this point i am not certain if remote viewing is possible but from what i read so far i think it is very possible.
Click to expand...
You certainly wouldn't be the first person to feel this way about RV. Why, just read this heartwarming tale about a dedicated team of open-minded professional remote-viewers who share your reasonable view of the world:

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/psitechsmart.htm

It's sure to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside about the possibilities of remote viewing...

certainly brought a tear to my eye.
 
psiload,

thank you for posting that. i already knew that kind of stuff went on. it is a shame. the lure of money taints so many things.

at this point i am not sure if RV exists but i refuse to enter into the nasty little game of automatically dismissing it based on "general bias" towards all things unexplained.

a GOOD scientist will not do that. a good scientist will try very hard to always keep an open mind.

there could be some aspects of remote viewing that works fairly well.

I like the research done at SRI, Princeton, and other labs around the world. The skeptics who bash it do not present very good evidence against it. it seems more like a personal attack.

just because something goes against your world view does not mean it is false.
 
Do the tests as above described. If you do well enough, apply for the million.
Click to expand...

i have been doing some research into this million prize and it seems incredibly phony. i just read a quote where randi stated that he ALWAYS has an out.
 
olaf said:


i have been doing some research into this million prize and it seems incredibly phony. i just read a quote where randi stated that he ALWAYS has an out.
Click to expand...

Call me skeptical, but a quote from where?
 
olaf said:

i have been doing some research into this million prize and it seems incredibly phony. i just read a quote where randi stated that he ALWAYS has an out.
Click to expand...

Olaf, do you mind letting us know where you found this quote and why you consider the million $ prize to be "incredibly phony"?

Nigel

Jeez, DangerousBeliefs beat me to it!
 
I was surfing the web a couple of nights ago. I will see if I can come up with it.

Overall I think it is dangerous that a magician is involved in the whole process of determining what may or may not be valid.

the hoops that he makes people jump through are impossible and that is dangerous because the average person is unaware of this.

the whole thing is really absurd. Although i am sure he does some good.
 
olaf said:
I was surfing the web a couple of nights ago. I will see if I can come up with it.

Overall I think it is dangerous that a magician is involved in the whole process of determining what may or may not be valid.

the hoops that he makes people jump through are impossible and that is dangerous because the average person is unaware of this.

the whole thing is really absurd. Although i am sure he does some good.
Click to expand...

The rules for the million are clearly outlined. The tests are such that a winner will be self evident. If you look in the appropriate forums, you'll find lots of explainations about this (over and over again).

Winning the prize is a fairly simple process. The rules are clearly stated here:

http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html

Now quit thread hijacking and start a new one in the challenge forum.
 
Okay, so don't apply for the million dollars.


Just run the test as others have indicated, and give the results. Prove the "close-minded" wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom