Has remote viewing already been tested?

[qII]

I suspect that it might work based on some reading that I have done. It may not work though.

I don't know enough about it to answer specific questions.

i did have an odd experience one time. My grandma died in the middle of the night and that night I woke up from a dream and I knew she had died. i found out the next morning. it was extremely odd because she was in perfect health. 57 years old and had a great life but it was a sudden stroke.

this seems similar to mother's who get this sense of doom when something happens to their child. sure it does not happen all the time but there are so many odd cases of people reporting this that it makes one wonder. I know the arguments that are about to follow concerning millions of events that transpire and millions of bad dreams etc etc...

I think what makes me the most suspicious that it may work is that you people are piling on it. There is an agenda that takes place here among many members. the agenda is to attack that which has no explanation at the present time.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

this seems similar to mother's who get this sense of doom when something happens to their child. sure it does not happen all the time but there are so many odd cases of people reporting this that it makes one wonder. I know the arguments that are about to follow concerning millions of events that transpire and millions of bad dreams etc etc...

I think what makes me the most suspicious that it may work is that you people are piling on it. There is an agenda that takes place here among many members. the agenda is to attack that which has no explanation at the present time.

I'm a mother, I've had a sense of doom when something has been wrong with my kids. The problem is, many times I've had that sense of doom and nothing was wrong. People just remember the times they were right.

Sure, it might be a lot of work. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary work. "Because I said so" isn't enough.

 

[pgwenthold]

I think what makes me the most suspicious that it may work is that you people are piling on it. There is an agenda that takes place here among many members. the agenda is to attack that which has no explanation at the present time.

You apparently haven't read this thread. No one has "piled" on anything. All we have done is discussed ways that it could be demonstrated if it were to exist.

As I said, we have shown the epitome of open-mindedness, discussing lots of different procedures that could be used to demonstrate RV. Oddly enough, "I dreamed my grandma died and she did" was not one of the things that was included in the discussion. For good reason, of course.

 

[Ipecac]

I think what makes me the most suspicious that it may work is that you people are piling on it. There is an agenda that takes place here among many members. the agenda is to attack that which has no explanation at the present time.

Oh, well why didn't you say so? With evidence like that, it must work.

Sheesh.

 

[Ipecac]

I'm beginning to think this is the real Count Olaf.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Who is Count Olaf?

 

[Dragon]

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.

Olaf, to address your points -
1. The suggested "forced choice" protocols make no assumptions about how RV works. What mode of action do you have in mind that these protocols would not detect?

2. Your thoughts about what sceptics might do if someone passes such a future test are irrelevant to the validity of those tests.

 

[qII]

Yes who is count olaf?

Evidence that people have an "agenda" can be seen on the acupuncture thread. If it is not understood and the results can be a little hard to sort out then it must be crushed.

Negative Negative Negative. I wonder if there is a correlation between "negative skepticism" and some type of depression? Just asking.

 

[Loki]

olaf,

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.

1. Can you think of anyway of discovering how RV actually works that doesn't involve testing theories? If we think of 10 ways it 'might work', we test them and find they fail, doesn't this tell us anything at all?

2. Why is this a problem? We make a theory, we test it, it passes, yet it contradicts some other theory. We now have two theories with experiemntal support, that contradict each other. So we reexamine each theory for potential flaws that might resolve the contradiciton.

Tell you what, rather than complaining "If I pass this test, you'll just make me take another test, and then another, and then another - you'll never be satisfied", how about just passing the first test, then we'll talk.

I think what makes me the most suspicious that it may work is that you people are piling on it. There is an agenda that takes place here among many members. the agenda is to attack that which has no explanation at the present time.

I have an agenda - to 'pile on', or 'to attack', any claimant that hasn't bothered to even attempt to gather ANY data in support. Simple, really - do your homework. Claims like RV have been around for a long time, and so have the questions and objections. It's not hard to find out what issues people will raise to such a claim, so if anyone wishes to make such a claim then DO SOME INITIAL WORK to counter the objections.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Better watch out. olaf is a self-professed seeker of truth and not a believer in psychic phenomena. As he states himself, he has an open mind.

 

[Soapy Sam]

And the first thing to fall out of an open mind is rational thinking.

RV is hooey. Pure, unadulterated, simple nonsense.

This is why people have curtains.

Why the CIA does not know where Osama is.
Why I don't know where my passport is.
Why blindfolds work.
Why doors work.
Why privacy is a reality.

Can we just for once, grow up and admit that some things don't need to be tested?
Because they are hooey.


End rant.

 

[qII]

Why the CIA does not know where Osama is.

Sounds like a good argument but i don't think it holds up. If RV worked it would not come equippped with some type of built in latitude longitude tracking system.

If it works it would work in some very vague manner. I think that some people would be much better at it than others.

this is something that can not be dismissed yet.

I also like the work that was done at the stanford research institute.

 

[Nigel]

Sounds like a good argument but i don't think it holds up. If RV worked it would not come equippped with some type of built in latitude longitude tracking system.

If it works it would work in some very vague manner. I think that some people would be much better at it than others.

this is something that can not be dismissed yet.

I also like the work that was done at the stanford research institute.

You sound awfully sure of yourself olaf. How do you know it wouldn't come with a tracking system? How do you know it would work in some very vague manner? And as for the SRI work, I know there are many others on here who can argue that point more eloquently than I.

I'd just like to see any evidence you have, or references you know about, that concerns RV.

Nigel

 

[Ratman_tf]

There is an agenda that takes place here among many members. the agenda is to attack that which has no explanation at the present time.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. *shrug*

 

[qII]

You sound awfully sure of yourself olaf. How do you know it wouldn't come with a tracking system? How do you know it would work in some very vague manner? And as for the SRI work, I know there are many others on here who can argue that point more eloquently than I.

I'd just like to see any evidence you have, or references you know about, that concerns RV.

Nigel

To be honest i don't even know if it does work. I suspect that it very well could though.

i do know that many people here think they know a lot more than they really do. It is as if the people here think that almost everything has been discovered.

Quantum nonlocality as explained by tez is about the spookiest thing i have ever heard of. Why is it that people are raising all kinds of fuss about that? It seems that many have tried and even some people here have tried to dismiss it. However, I think that I will go with tez' answer.

if you stop and think about it nonlocality is probably the building block from which remote viewing is possible.

i suspect that this "invisible glue" that binds everything in the universe is the reason for strange phenomena.

 

[Nigel]

To be honest i don't even know if it does work. I suspect that it very well could though.

You've said this more than a few times. I'm just curious why you think it works (if it does).

i do know that many people here think they know a lot more than they really do. It is as if the people here think that almost everything has been discovered.

I may be relatively new here, but I don't think there is anyone here who thinks "almost everything has been discovered."

Quantum nonlocality as explained by tez is about the spookiest thing i have ever heard of. Why is it that people are raising all kinds of fuss about that? It seems that many have tried and even some people here have tried to dismiss it. However, I think that I will go with tez' answer.
if you stop and think about it nonlocality is probably the building block from which remote viewing is possible.

I'm not familiar with what you're talking about, so I can't comment.

i suspect that this "invisible glue" that binds everything in the universe is the reason for strange phenomena.

Quite a blanket statement. What exactly do you mean by 'strange phenomena'?
However, if I'm not mistaken, is not the 'strong force' the 'glue' that binds the universe together (on the subatomic level, at any rate)?

 

[Zep]

To be honest i don't even know if it does work. I suspect that it very well could though.

i do know that many people here think they know a lot more than they really do. It is as if the people here think that almost everything has been discovered.

Quantum nonlocality as explained by tez is about the spookiest thing i have ever heard of. Why is it that people are raising all kinds of fuss about that? It seems that many have tried and even some people here have tried to dismiss it. However, I think that I will go with tez' answer.

if you stop and think about it nonlocality is probably the building block from which remote viewing is possible.

i suspect that this "invisible glue" that binds everything in the universe is the reason for strange phenomena.

BA-DING! Buzzword bingo score! 5 points for mentioning "quantum", and a bonus 10 points for adding the word "nonlocality". But so far, no points on the technical side for explaining how it is relevant.

Carry on!

 

[Zep]

Olaf,

OK, so you have some sort of vague feeling that RV might work, based on some very vaguely encouraging personal results. Fair enough.

Right here, right now, this group of arch-skeptics is urging you to design a testing protocol that is robust and applicable so that you can put this to a genuine test. Please be very aware of this situation: We are not being closed-minded, we are not trying to set you up to fail, we are not looking for an "out" to fail you later. All you need to do to convince us is to produce robust and well-tested proof. That's all! Really!

And we will even go a step further. Already above you have seen a lengthy discussion on that design process (more from me on that momentarily). If it is a good set of tests, and the results are as positive as you think they will be, I can assure you that you will have our full and undivided attention.

However you should also be aware that your testing and results, as is done to all startling scientific results, will be subject to severe scrutiny by some of the best minds on this planet. If it is robust enough to impress them then you will indeed have a major breakthrough on your hands. You may think this sounds daunting, but each and every major scientific breakthrough has been subject to exactly the same scrutiny, and this testing process is repeated as and when necessary. This is how we get to know that something is good science - it is tested and tested and tested by many people, and stands up to this scrutiny.

So do you understand this process? This is what we are talking about here - robust and reliable testing, not "scientists shooting it down because they don't like it". Maybe some people won't like it if RV proves true, but if it stands up to robust testing then there is really nothing they can do about! The operative part, however, is IF it stands up to robust testing...

OK?

 

[Dragon]

...
i suspect that this "invisible glue" that binds everything in the universe is the reason for strange phenomena.

Errrgh!. Must .......... resist ......temptation .......sarcastic .......Star Wars reference.

[takes deep breath]
Sorry, better now. Please carry on.

 

[Zep]

Errrgh!. Must .......... resist ......temptation .......sarcastic .......Star Wars reference.

[takes deep breath]
Sorry, better now. Please carry on.

Yes, I had to put my light-sabre down too before I continued typing...

{waves hand} This is not the reality you are looking for. We can go about our business...