Has remote viewing already been tested?

[qII]

Ed,
i understand that you are stating a need for good evidence. I do not have a problem with that --i agree.

What I don't agree with is some of the ridiculous attitudes that go on here where people already have their minds made up and are unwilling to even entertain that an odd phenomena exists due to things that we do not understand yet.

I believe that eventually our physicists will provide the groundwork which changes much of the way we think about the human body. it is already happening but very few people are willing to move out of their comfort zone.

 

[Ed]

Ed,
i understand that you are stating a need for good evidence. I do not have a problem with that --i agree.

What I don't agree with is some of the ridiculous attitudes that go on here where people already have their minds made up and are unwilling to even entertain that an odd phenomena exists due to things that we do not understand yet.

I believe that eventually our physicists will provide the groundwork which changes much of the way we think about the human body. it is already happening but very few people are willing to move out of their comfort zone.

Fair enough. I suspect most sensible people would dismiss what I suggested out of hand. The question is how are various paranormal claims any different from my witchcraft example?

In a world of limited resourses, where would you spoend your money and why?

 

[Ipecac]

Olaf, you may have been born yesterday, but humanity wasn't.

These RV claims have been around for a LONG time and over the last century or so have been tested time and again, sometimes with proper scientific protocols, sometimes without. And in all that testing there is no evidence that RV powers even exist, let alone follow any particular rules.

The reason you can't find out much information on how RV works or why is because such information does not exist. Is it possible it works? Sure. But a century of failure to even prove its existence is pretty telling.

As for Count Olaf, he is the pompous, ill-educated villain of Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events, a fabulous series of books (ostensibly for kids) written with sly humor and a wonderfully subtle, developing storyline. Highly recommended. A movie of the first three books is coming out in December with Jim Carrey as the Count.

See here: Count Olaf

 

[pgwenthold]

What I don't agree with is some of the ridiculous attitudes that go on here where people already have their minds made up and are unwilling to even entertain that an odd phenomena exists due to things that we do not understand yet.

What the?

Man, not only are we "unwilling to entertain that an odd phenomena (sic) exists," we spent the whole day yesterday discussing ways in which it could be demonstrated to exist! (assuming it does, of course)

How much more willing do we need to be? No, you are not asking us to "entertain" that an odd phenomenon exists, you want us to accept that it DOES exist despite the lack of any decent evidence.

But it gets worse. You don't like our tests because "RV might not work that way," but when challenged to say how it works, you go silent. So, in effect, you are asking us to entertain a belief in something but you can't even tell us what that something is!

We have a general view of RV based on what people who claim to be able to RV tell us they can do (see Chemical_Penguin). But if that's not RV, then I don't know what RV is. It makes no sense to entertain a belief in something when I don't have any concept of what that thing is.

There are an infinite number of things that are not defined with no evidence. Should I entertain the possibility of all of them? Do you entertain the possibility of the Tremor Gargantuan Effect? Don't know what that is? Well, I can't really tell you what it is, but you should have an open mind...

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Thanks for the info on Count Olaf. I've never read that series of books.

The name Olaf brings to my mind,Olaf the Troll . Maybe I should read more, and watch less TV.





Olaf: You do well to flee, townspeople! I will pillage your lands and dwellings! I will burn your crops and make merry sport with your more attractive daughters! Ha ha ha! Mark my words! (He pauses and sniffs the air.) Ooh! Ale! I smell delicious ale!

--Olaf the Troll, BtVS episode "Triangle"

 

[qII]

Olaf, you may have been born yesterday, but humanity wasn't.

These RV claims have been around for a LONG time and over the last century or so have been tested time and again, sometimes with proper scientific protocols, sometimes without. And in all that testing there is no evidence that RV powers even exist, let alone follow any particular rules.

The reason you can't find out much information on how RV works or why is because such information does not exist. Is it possible it works? Sure. But a century of failure to even prove its existence is pretty telling.

As for Count Olaf, he is the pompous, ill-educated villain of Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events, a fabulous series of books (ostensibly for kids) written with sly humor and a wonderfully subtle, developing storyline. Highly recommended. A movie of the first three books is coming out in December with Jim Carrey as the Count.

See here: Count Olaf

richard provided the poaper that the skeptics claim refutes the work of the PEAR group by PEAR themselves.

I am reading it now and already I see where you people are making your errors.

at this point I am getting a little stronger in my suspicion that RV may indeeed work.

You say there is no evidence but i am seeing it. the question is can it be reproduced and i believe that it has been reproduced but i do want more.

 

[Ipecac]

Then by all means, let's hear your evidence. So far, you've provided nothing.

 

[qII]

what i have gathered so far is that when the researchers narrow the parameters of the study more and more they get less results but this is easily explained by the researchers.

When the rules change this forces the remote viewers to make definite distinctions and this loss of freedom is what seems to be giving poorer results.

it is a simple case of forcing something to be something that it is not.

When these harsh constraints are removed we then once again return to excellent results.

However, this will be ignored by people who already have their minds made up.

 

[pgwenthold]

what i have gathered so far is that when the researchers narrow the parameters of the study more and more they get less results but this is easily explained by the researchers.

When the rules change this forces the remote viewers to make definite distinctions and this loss of freedom is what seems to be giving poorer results.

it is a simple case of forcing something to be something that it is not.

Actually, it's a simple case of forcing RVers to say what they can do, and to eliminate the possibility that the supposed "hits" are due to things that are not the result of RV.

As soon as they are forced to use actual remote viewing, the positive results disappear.

You are right, it is easily explained...

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

When the rules change this forces the remote viewers to make definite distinctions and this loss of freedom is what seems to be giving poorer results.

If RV cannot make distinctions, what can it do?

 

[qII]

You need to read the paper with an open mind and understand that the perfect results that you demand are NOT possible.

let me guess-- because a remote viewer is unable to read pages from a book that the agent is holding in front of him then that means there is no such thing as RV.

 

[Nigel]

what i have gathered so far is that when the researchers narrow the parameters of the study more and more they get less results but this is easily explained by the researchers.

When the rules change this forces the remote viewers to make definite distinctions and this loss of freedom is what seems to be giving poorer results.

it is a simple case of forcing something to be something that it is not.

When these harsh constraints are removed we then once again return to excellent results.

However, this will be ignored by people who already have their minds made up.

This reminds me of the PK bit in Randi's Flim-Flam - when the researchers watched children who could bend metal using PK closely, the metal didn't bend. However, when the researchers relaxed protocols ("removing harsh restraints"), then voila! The metal was bent.

Still no evidence....

Nigel

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You need to read the paper with an open mind and understand that the perfect results that you demand are NOT possible.

let me guess-- because a remote viewer is unable to read pages from a book that the agent is holding in front of him then that means there is no such thing as RV.

Nobody is demanding perfect results, just those that are statistically above chance.

Can you say what you think RV may be able to do? This is an essential first step before you can even think about testing it.

 

[qII]

Nobody is demanding perfect results, just those that are statistically above chance.

Can you say what you think RV may be able to do? This is an essential first step before you can even think about testing it.

This is what PEAR, SRI, and dozens of other labs around the world have achieved -- allegedly.

I tend to think they are on to something.

I know that it is upsetting to your view of the world but you get used to it rather quickly.

 

[Ipecac]

I tend to think they are on to something.

That's okay. The rest of us tend to think that you are on something.

 

[qII]

That's okay. The rest of us tend to think that you are on something.

Regardless. They obtained a whole lot of evidence that I find convincing. All it takes is an open mind, a willingness to know that there are many things that we do not understand yet.

It is my belief that quantum mechanics could possibly explain this phenomena. Our physicists think that everything is connected in some way. Combine that with the fact that everything (humans) are composed of quantum particles and I can see a way where we take on some of the properties of the small bits that we are made from.

 

[voidx]

what i have gathered so far is that when the researchers narrow the parameters of the study more and more they get less results but this is easily explained by the researchers.

When the rules change this forces the remote viewers to make definite distinctions and this loss of freedom is what seems to be giving poorer results.

it is a simple case of forcing something to be something that it is not.

When these harsh constraints are removed we then once again return to excellent results.

However, this will be ignored by people who already have their minds made up.

Do the RV'ers themselves complain that this is too restricting? Do RV'ers in general say their ability does not allow them to make definite distinctions? If so, where did you read this to get this point of view? I'm not doubting you, but if you do not know for sure that this is a problem with the process that RV'ers themselves claim, then you are simply making an unfounded assumption that the stricter controls are forcing RV'ers to do something they say they can't.

You're also using the oldest trick in the debating book. You've come blazing into this threads with accusations of close-minded skeptics and yet you have not been able to provide any examples that we are being what you claim we are. Yet you continue to use that definition of us and an excuse as to why there's no real point in arguing with us, and why your more open-minded. Do you not see that this insistent belief that the majority of skeptics on this board are close-minded, is itself, rather close-minded?

 

[Dragon]

it may seem like an insult but possibly it may force some of you to take a good long look at your motives.

ask yourself why am i such a pessimistic skeptic? why do i feel the need to rip on everything that is different. (acupuncture is a good example).

does my negativity give me a sense of power and security?

does it give me a chance to feel smarter than the next guy?

olaf, these are obviously calculated insults from you -
"Are the people here just a gathering of malcontents who happen to have science backgrounds? I sometimes think that if you had 30 points shaved off your IQ you might be sitting around a bar ripping on ethnic groups or something."

and

"It is almost like an illness I tell you --an illness. The negativity festers throughout all aspects of your life. Soon your wife is leaving you for some happy guy (that is if you even have someone in the first place)."

Resorting to such tactics suggests a weak arguement.

You should not make assumptions about the motives of other people. To see where I am coming from - read my sig. Hardly pessimistic is it?

Back to the topic -

What do you think RV can do?
Why, specifically, do you think "forced choice" experiments might fail?

Please either

1. Answer the questions
2. State that you don't know the answers OR
3. State that you refuse to answer
   [/list=1]

 

[scotth]

It is my belief that quantum mechanics could possibly explain this phenomena. Our physicists think that everything is connected in some way. Combine that with the fact that everything (humans) are composed of quantum particles and I can see a way where we take on some of the properties of the small bits that we are made from.

Keep studying QM, (Let me know when you can pass some college level exams in the field) and see if you still hold the same opinion.

 

[qII]

olaf

Back to the topic -

What do you think RV can do?
Why, specifically, do you think "forced choice" experiments might fail?

Please either

1. Answer the questions
2. State that you don't know the answers OR
3. State that you refuse to answer
   [/list=1]

1. 
   
   I don't know.
   
   Your sig sounds like a reminder for someone (maybe here) to not BLOW his brains out.