Has remote viewing already been tested?

[pgwenthold]

Just get his girl friend to go to one of, say five different, known locations. Let him guess which one it is. Do this for a number of reps.

Just be sure to make the locations as different as possible. Make one a beach. Another is a bysy street corner in the middle of a lot of buildings. Another is a wooded park. Another is at the local gym for a workout. And lastly, the nursery wing at the hospital. Have her roll a die to figure out where to go.

Tell her to be there during her lunch hour, from 12 - 1 pm. Spend the time from 12:15 - 12:45 trying to figure it out. Write it down. When she gets home, ask where she was.

Do this every day for a couple of weeks.

 

[figtertype]

Originally posted by pgwenthold:

I don't know why you are going through all this hassle. Instead of having the girlfriend write down attributes about the object, just have her bring in a bag of 6 things, including the object that was in the box, and ask which is the one that most closely resembles what he saw. Scoring is easy: he gets it right, he gets 1. He gets it wrong, he gets 0. He can write down attributes if he wants, but he is the judge of what he saw. If he can't pick it out of 6 options, then apparently he didn't see it all that clearly.

Why play such foolishly vague games like comparing lists of attributes? Sure there might be hits, but not all hits are the same. Moveover, suppose one person indicates "round" and the other does not specify a shape. Is that really a miss? Not necessarily, because it just depends on whether both people consider it worth listing.

If you are going to do it that way, there needs to be a checklist of options that they need to describe so that each person provides the same type and extent of information.

The way you suggest has a problem: At the point where Penguin is required to pick out the object, his girlfriend is present, and knows which item it is. My way produces a record of results that can be examined by other parties, is double blind, and wrong guesses have a negative impact on the score.

The checklist is a very good idea though. So long as the options are not too vague. 'Small' should be excluded, since I think the box is still a relevant part of the proceedure.

Originally posted by Drooper:
I'd immediately change this protocol. Why the need for a box? All of a sudden you are giving information. You know how big the object can be. You know how heavy the object can be (if somebody has carried it).

Just get his girl friend to go to one of, say five different, known locations. Let him guess which one it is. Do this for a number of reps.

One problem, Drooper. That's not what Penguin claimed to be able to do. His example consisted of guessing an object in his girlfriends possesion. Also, you'd have to have a mechanism in place to be certain that in telling him that she is ready and in one of the places she doesn't inadvertantly give away her position. At very least, you need a third person to accept the phonecall or whatever. And a way to randomly choose which site she goes to.

 

[pgwenthold]

The way you suggest has a problem: At the point where Penguin is required to pick out the object, his girlfriend is present, and knows which item it is.

She doesn't have to be. She carries in a box of 6 items, dumps then on the floor, and goes to another room. He brings her the piece he viewed.

This requires NO judging at all.

The checklist idea is acceptable, except creating the checklist is very difficult (and it wouldn't just be a checklist, but would be a series of categories with various options under each one; you just need to make sure that each item has a unique pattern). It's a lot easier to just choose the correct item.

 

[Ipecac]

Here's another suggestion.

Have a friend put several objects on a table in a dark room. Walk into the room in complete darkness, look to where the table is and name the objects. You can stand right next to the objects if you wish.

What's the point of this? If you can see an item sitting inside a (presumably) dark box, you should be able to see items in a dark room.

Apparently remote viewing not only allows you to see things very far away, it also gives you night-vision.

 

[Drooper]

One problem, Drooper. That's not what Penguin claimed to be able to do. His example consisted of guessing an object in his girlfriends possesion. Also, you'd have to have a mechanism in place to be certain that in telling him that she is ready and in one of the places she doesn't inadvertantly give away her position. At very least, you need a third person to accept the phonecall or whatever. And a way to randomly choose which site she goes to.

I thought that was just his example of how he attempted to RV.

Surely both are RV. If he has no problem with it why not try it?

 

[pgwenthold]

Here's another suggestion.

Have a friend put several objects on a table in a dark room. Walk into the room in complete darkness, look to where the table is and name the objects. You can stand right next to the objects if you wish.

Unfortunately that still leaves you with the question of what we mean by identifying the objects. If one object is a water bottle and he calls it a vase, is it correct or not? You will say no, he will say yes, and we are at a standoff.

OTOH, if you ask "Which of these do you think it was?" then he can chose the object that most closely matches his impression. If the choice is between a water bottle, a book of matches, and a toy bike, then it is very clear that the water bottle most closely resembles a vase, so he chooses the water bottle, and the fact he got it right is unambiguous. If he can do that at a better than statistical rate, then I am impressed.

 

[pgwenthold]

There is something I want to point out in this thread. Read the discussion that is taking place about ways to demonstrate a remote viewing ability.

Now tell me, does it really sound like a bunch of closed-minded people? Not at all. In fact, no one is saying that he can't do it, just "Here is what he should do to show it."

That's not closed-minded, just careful. Exactly as a skeptic should be. Define protocols before you start so that you know what will be considered success. Establish a control.

Closed-minded folk would be more like, "Don't bother, you aren't going to pass." Here it is "Do this and then see if you pass. If you can really remote view, it will work."

 

[Nigel]

Unfortunately that still leaves you with the question of what we mean by identifying the objects. If one object is a water bottle and he calls it a vase, is it correct or not? You will say no, he will say yes, and we are at a standoff.

OTOH, if you ask "Which of these do you think it was?" then he can chose the object that most closely matches his impression. If the choice is between a water bottle, a book of matches, and a toy bike, then it is very clear that the water bottle most closely resembles a vase, so he chooses the water bottle, and the fact he got it right is unambiguous. If he can do that at a better than statistical rate, then I am impressed.

You wouldn't have such similar target objects as a water bottle and a vase, would you? So the only choice is to have dissimilar objects such as a water bottle, a book of matches and a bike.

However, as has been noted, putting the items in a box means the objects can't be bigger than that box. Why not put the items in their own separate room instead? That way, you can use something that's "bigger than a breadbox".

Plus, you'd also have to agree beforehand what constitutes a hit and a miss (even if that's been said, it bears repeating).

Nigel

 

[Soapy Sam]

Remote viewing is of course absolutely real.

The gummint knows this and long ago recruited GOOD scientists to their SECRET PROJECT deep in the Ozarks, from where they found Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.
Osama has not been captured because he is a freemason like most of the Secret Service and gets tip-offs via thought transference. Also, he has counter RV-ers who block the GOOD GUYS, by breathing on their crystal balls.*

*(This is legal under Islamic Law, where a man may have up to four.)

nb, Olaf, GOOD scientists are ones who check their research and submit it to peer review. Open mindedness is actually not a requirement. Just the facts. You may be confusing them with Creation Scientists, who are no good either.

 

[pgwenthold]

You wouldn't have such similar target objects as a water bottle and a vase, would you? So the only choice is to have dissimilar objects such as a water bottle, a book of matches and a bike.

Isn't that what I said? Ask "Which one was it?" and show them the water bottle, book of matches, and a bike. If you just leave it up to "What was it?" there are arguments about whether they get it right.

However, as has been noted, putting the items in a box means the objects can't be bigger than that box. Why not put the items in their own separate room instead? That way, you can use something that's "bigger than a breadbox".

Plus, you'd also have to agree beforehand what constitutes a hit and a miss (even if that's been said, it bears repeating).

You are confusing things, here.

In the process I describe, where you ask "Which one was it?", a hit is obvious. In fact, this is why you use a procedure in which the RVer just has to pick out the right one, to avoid any issues about whether it is a hit or a miss.

The whole "judging whether it is correct or not" is the biggest sham of the psi research. It is so wrought with holes that it isn't even worth discussing. It's a horoscope guess, and we know how accurate they are (they are completely accurate, when applied to ones self).

Make the RVer select the viewed object out of a set of 4 very disimilar pieces. If they can't do it at least 50 times out of 100, then they really can't claim to be viewing it, can they?

(otoh, if they claim it is fuzzy and they could only be successful 3/10 times, then give them a 1000 trials and make them hit 300)

 

[figtertype]

There is something I want to point out in this thread. Read the discussion that is taking place about ways to demonstrate a remote viewing ability.

Now tell me, does it really sound like a bunch of closed-minded people? Not at all. In fact, no one is saying that he can't do it, just "Here is what he should do to show it."

That's not closed-minded, just careful. Exactly as a skeptic should be. Define protocols before you start so that you know what will be considered success. Establish a control.

Closed-minded folk would be more like, "Don't bother, you aren't going to pass." Here it is "Do this and then see if you pass. If you can really remote view, it will work."

*applauds*

Quite right, pgwenthold.

If you succeed at one of these tests and can defend you methods against our poking and proding for flaws, you've got something to brag about.

If you fail and have the goonies to admit it, at the very least you'll have earned our respect.

 

[Ipecac]

Unfortunately that still leaves you with the question of what we mean by identifying the objects. If one object is a water bottle and he calls it a vase, is it correct or not? You will say no, he will say yes, and we are at a standoff.

OTOH, if you ask "Which of these do you think it was?" then he can chose the object that most closely matches his impression. If the choice is between a water bottle, a book of matches, and a toy bike, then it is very clear that the water bottle most closely resembles a vase, so he chooses the water bottle, and the fact he got it right is unambiguous. If he can do that at a better than statistical rate, then I am impressed.

Quite right. I wasn't trying to put forth an air-tight protocol, I was just trying to point out that remote viewing "experiments" that put items into a dark box ignore another paranormal feat that is required for the experiment to be successful - that of seeing in the dark.

 

[figtertype]

Originally posted by lpcac:
Quite right. I wasn't trying to put forth an air-tight protocol, I was just trying to point out that remote viewing "experiments" that put items into a dark box ignore another paranormal feat that is required for the experiment to be successful - that of seeing in the dark.

Ooooh! That gives me a whole new set of ideas! You could take an agreed upon object and place it in different situations. (underwater, in the dark, underground, up a tree, etc.) and ask the remote veiwer to describe where it is or what situation it is in (Using proper proceedures and protocols, of course). I wish I knew someone who claimed to be able to remote view. All this testing sounds like a lot of fun.

 

[roger]

Ooooh! That gives me a whole new set of ideas! You could take an agreed upon object and place it in different situations. (underwater, in the dark, underground, up a tree, etc.) and ask the remote veiwer to describe where it is or what situation it is in (Using proper proceedures and protocols, of course). I wish I knew someone who claimed to be able to remote view. All this testing sounds like a lot of fun.

Well, no, because you are reintroducing judging bias into the equation. The biggest problem with RV that I have seen is where RVers are trying to describe locations. Does "lots of hills in the distance and a lake" match a city scene (buildings giving impressions of hills) in front of a river. Lots of judges say yes, just like our erstwhile opening poster who thought a plastic bottle with writing on it was a hit for a RVed vase with a picture. There's only so many configurations in nature when you are allowed to be so general in your descriptions, giving an unnaturally high judged hit rate.

 

[figtertype]

"Using proper proceedures and protocols, of course."

You could still limit it to a small number of very different predetermined environments and have the RVer tell you which one. The structure isn't changed much from the suggested method of using a predetermined variety of objects, or a person in one of a number of predetermined places. Same basic concept, really.

 

[pgwenthold]

"Using proper proceedures and protocols, of course."

You could still limit it to a small number of very different predetermined environments and have the RVer tell you which one. The structure isn't changed much from the suggested method of using a predetermined variety of objects, or a person in one of a number of predetermined places. Same basic concept, really.

I was envisioning a process where it could either be stuffed into a container of water, or a container of sand, or a container of styrofoam peanuts, are a container with nothing else. Same idea, I agree.

 

[qII]

the ideas that the skeptics are coming up with are good except for a couple of problems:

1. it may not be the way remote viewing actually works.

2. i am absolutely certain that if these suggestions are put into practice (and they probably already have been) and if they pass then the skeptics will in a matter of a couple of months have a VERY long list of all the reasons why the experiment design is bad.

i.e., no matter what evidence is presented it will be discredited.

once again this is assuming that RV works. i think it may but i am not sure. once again i will not let myself fall into that poisonous trap of claiming it does not work based on my desire to live in a nice, neat, orderly world.

 

[qII]

cheating is only one of several explanations given by skeptics as to why results might be positive. the list is endless when a group of people have an agenda to push.

i can see it now: "the 2 parties used a secretly implanted communication device to signal between each other"

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I find this attitude frustrating. You think that sceptics will not accept your study, even if you go by certain standards, so you won't even try? Talk about close minded.

 

[pgwenthold]

the ideas that the skeptics are coming up with are good except for a couple of problems:

1. it may not be the way remote viewing actually works.

So tell us, how does remote viewing work?

Is not remote viewing the ability to see something that is in a location not within view? If so, then these tests will demonstrate it. If not, what is it?

This is the problem that I see all the time. You will refuse to explain what it is because you know if you do, then it will make it testable, at which point it will fail the test. OTOH, if you leave it completely vague and undefined, then it is non-falsifiable. There is always an out...

2. i am absolutely certain that if these suggestions are put into practice (and they probably already have been) and if they pass then the skeptics will in a matter of a couple of months have a VERY long list of all the reasons why the experiment design is bad.

i.e., no matter what evidence is presented it will be discredited.

Hey, try us. As the Shrub says, "Bring it on!"

I'm here waiting.

once again this is assuming that RV works. i think it may but i am not sure. once again i will not let myself fall into that poisonous trap of claiming it does not work based on my desire to live in a nice, neat, orderly world.

Why would you assume it works? Do you have any good evidence to suggest it does?