Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Ah, you must be referring to the property where particles can see what is going on in some other remote place.
Come on, man, show us the math.
~~ Paul
Has remote viewing already been tested?
- Thread starter Chemical_Penguin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- remote viewing
Come on, man, show us the math.
~~ Paul
scotth said:
The reason why I even showed up here is because I was reading books by scientists who are tying QM to these strange phenomena.. Not my ideas but i kind of like them.
For them it starts with the idea that zero point field may be the means from which this can take place.
I earlier simply denied that RV is anything but hooey. This was a rant and may be described as unhelpful.
So why am I so sure it is hooey?
Two reasons.
1. If humans had the ability to observe objects at a distance, by any means whatever, natural selection would long ago have selected humans for the ability as it so clearly gives a major selective advantage to its possessors.
Now we might respond that the ability may be a very recent evolutionary development, and so at a rudimentary level.
That's testable. We know a lot about genetic variation around the world. Does the ability have a geographic distribution? That would have genetic implications.
2. If RV exists, not only must it be explicable in scientific terms (though not necessarily in terms we understand now), but it must not contradict any tested scientific principle.
So, how is the information transmitted? By radio? To a human brain? Do we know of any other human brains able to pick up radio waves?
If not radio, then how? Telepathy ? Or by some property inherent in any object which can project itself around the world and into a human brain? Any support for that? Any hint of a mechanism? Anywhere? At all?
It is a frequent occurrence for a new poster to come to this board with an idea that he presents as though it were news to everyone here. When it is dismissed by people to whom it is very old news, the poster then accuses his audience of being closed minded.
Surely, we want people to present their ideas. But we expect them to support their ideas with evidence and to appreciate that we may have reasons for our attitudes. If our minds are not open to certain concepts, there may be reasons other than stupidity.
Here we have an example. Olaf may feel perfectly justified in his criticisms. In part this is probably because he is not aware that we have heard it all several times before. This is why we need a FAQ database. This is also old ground.
Olaf, I apologise if I appear closed minded. Everyone has his limit. I am much more broadminded than some here on certain issues. I'm wooly enough about some alternative therapies to annoy the medics; I can allow a limited credence to some claims of magnetic pipecleaning; I can even tolerate the odd UFOlogist, but RV is just silly.
If you want to set up a serious experiment to prove me wrong, as suggested by others here, I will be happy to help. And if you are right, I will help you spend the $1000000. But I think you are outright wrong. If you want a target to try for, there are six eight digit numbers on a piece of paper in my desk drawer. Feel free to tell me what they are.
If you require my latitude & longitude to do this, or need me to concentrate on them at a particular time, feel free to PM me. I'll help all I can. Really.
So why am I so sure it is hooey?
Two reasons.
1. If humans had the ability to observe objects at a distance, by any means whatever, natural selection would long ago have selected humans for the ability as it so clearly gives a major selective advantage to its possessors.
Now we might respond that the ability may be a very recent evolutionary development, and so at a rudimentary level.
That's testable. We know a lot about genetic variation around the world. Does the ability have a geographic distribution? That would have genetic implications.
2. If RV exists, not only must it be explicable in scientific terms (though not necessarily in terms we understand now), but it must not contradict any tested scientific principle.
So, how is the information transmitted? By radio? To a human brain? Do we know of any other human brains able to pick up radio waves?
If not radio, then how? Telepathy ? Or by some property inherent in any object which can project itself around the world and into a human brain? Any support for that? Any hint of a mechanism? Anywhere? At all?
It is a frequent occurrence for a new poster to come to this board with an idea that he presents as though it were news to everyone here. When it is dismissed by people to whom it is very old news, the poster then accuses his audience of being closed minded.
Surely, we want people to present their ideas. But we expect them to support their ideas with evidence and to appreciate that we may have reasons for our attitudes. If our minds are not open to certain concepts, there may be reasons other than stupidity.
Here we have an example. Olaf may feel perfectly justified in his criticisms. In part this is probably because he is not aware that we have heard it all several times before. This is why we need a FAQ database. This is also old ground.
Olaf, I apologise if I appear closed minded. Everyone has his limit. I am much more broadminded than some here on certain issues. I'm wooly enough about some alternative therapies to annoy the medics; I can allow a limited credence to some claims of magnetic pipecleaning; I can even tolerate the odd UFOlogist, but RV is just silly.
If you want to set up a serious experiment to prove me wrong, as suggested by others here, I will be happy to help. And if you are right, I will help you spend the $1000000. But I think you are outright wrong. If you want a target to try for, there are six eight digit numbers on a piece of paper in my desk drawer. Feel free to tell me what they are.
If you require my latitude & longitude to do this, or need me to concentrate on them at a particular time, feel free to PM me. I'll help all I can. Really.
Dragon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,639
Thank you, that's clear. Though I presume you must have had reasons for saying -olaf said:
You seem to have come here with your mind made up about "close-minded skeptics".
I would urge you to re-read the excellent posts by Zep, Ed and Soapy Sam. If you really think they are being close-minded then there is little hope for you.
Ed said:
Ed,
It may not be so easy to show. When the parameters of the experiment change -- forcing the viewer out of his element -- then the evidence decreases. Even though it decreases it is still statistically significant but not by that much.
I think a person needs to have an open mind in order to really explore RV.
I tend to like the views of the scientists who are on the cutting edge. History is too full of examples of the old school continually being proven wrong and refusing to budge from their position.
Could that be you? It just might be.
Soapy Sam,
I agree, you seem to be a little more open minded than the others. I don't lump you in with the others. The question is do you have the backbone to stand up for your belief in acupuncture? (or should i say tenuous belief)
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
olaf said:
We hear this all the time...
Do you have any examples of the Scientific community being proven wrong and refusing to budge from their position?
I think you have science confused with religion... ( Or believers in RV perhaps? )
olaf said:
Well formed research is the enemy of fakes, that is obvious. The likes of PEAR, Targ, Schwartz et al. could not exist if they conducted good research.
I don't really understand what you mean by "element". Are you suggesting that some researchers make RVers shoot hoops while RVing? From what I have been able to gather, one needs to be able to concintrate.
You seem to have a problem with being demanding. Tell me, do you invest your money? If I promise a 50% return per annum will you let me invest? Would you ask for proof? Would you give me the benefit of the doubt if my jail term for fraud came up? If you gave my service a pass, might I suggest that you were being too rigourous?
Edit to add: If good research is a problem for you, why not just believe? As someone pointed out, the situation is the same as for religion.
Olaf- I have no "belief" in accupuncture. My one personal experience of accupuncture was agonising and had no beneficial effect I was aware of.
I have, however, observed that some "healers"- (a generic term for any medic, whether he has a degree or not) do a better job than others and that these are not always the "mainstream" practitioners. I suspect in many cases, the method is less important than the attitude and that the best results are often obtained, (especially in certain chronic conditions) when the healer and patient are sympathetic to each other.
That said, no amount of (for example) crystal waving will set a broken femur, however sympathetic the patient. That takes knowledge and training, which can be got from (among other places), med school. I do have more respect for physios, chiropractors etc than some folk here. Doesn't mean I'm right.
I'd still rather consult Third Twin(our resident med student) , or Rolfe for that matter, Vet or no, before (say) the world's best homoeopathist if I was sick. I just accept that the same may not be best for all patients and all conditions. I like my evidence hard. (Insert viagra joke here.) I take my pills like a good boy and find the pain is tolerable that way.
I do (I hope) have the backbone to stand up for my belief in scientific method as the best organising system we have come up with to date.
My attitude to RV is much more hard line, simply because RV if true would cut across so much of well tested science, (and everyday experience).
If you will forgive a word of advice- Popular science books by "cutting edge" scientists are indeed fascinating, but have dangers. Scientists write such books for several reasons, one of which is money. The more radical books may sell better. A "popular" book is not subject to the harsh constraints of peer review that a technical paper would be. It presents an opportunity for speculation which can be very hard to discern from the actual evidence presented.
Read widely in this genre, by all means but read con- as well as pro- opinion and compare the two. If you still prefer the con-, you will be better able to support your case in debate with those who disagree with you. Of whom there will usually be one or two here.
I have, however, observed that some "healers"- (a generic term for any medic, whether he has a degree or not) do a better job than others and that these are not always the "mainstream" practitioners. I suspect in many cases, the method is less important than the attitude and that the best results are often obtained, (especially in certain chronic conditions) when the healer and patient are sympathetic to each other.
That said, no amount of (for example) crystal waving will set a broken femur, however sympathetic the patient. That takes knowledge and training, which can be got from (among other places), med school. I do have more respect for physios, chiropractors etc than some folk here. Doesn't mean I'm right.
I'd still rather consult Third Twin(our resident med student) , or Rolfe for that matter, Vet or no, before (say) the world's best homoeopathist if I was sick. I just accept that the same may not be best for all patients and all conditions. I like my evidence hard. (Insert viagra joke here.) I take my pills like a good boy and find the pain is tolerable that way.
I do (I hope) have the backbone to stand up for my belief in scientific method as the best organising system we have come up with to date.
My attitude to RV is much more hard line, simply because RV if true would cut across so much of well tested science, (and everyday experience).
If you will forgive a word of advice- Popular science books by "cutting edge" scientists are indeed fascinating, but have dangers. Scientists write such books for several reasons, one of which is money. The more radical books may sell better. A "popular" book is not subject to the harsh constraints of peer review that a technical paper would be. It presents an opportunity for speculation which can be very hard to discern from the actual evidence presented.
Read widely in this genre, by all means but read con- as well as pro- opinion and compare the two. If you still prefer the con-, you will be better able to support your case in debate with those who disagree with you. Of whom there will usually be one or two here.
Heres my story on remote viewing. You can label me as crazy, because like i am about to say 3 months ago i wouldn't believe it either.
I thought 'psychic' stuff was all crazy american BS until a few months ago when i watched a documentory on the stargate remote viewing program on the discovery channel, I consider the paranormal smoke and mirrors etc (or did consider it anyway) For a long time i just ignored/dismissed/didn't care about this until i was bored one day and i decided to search for it. Ok i did feel a bit stupid but i was bored ok!
I did 10 targets in a row, just closing my eyes and drawing pictures, labelling the colours etc. I could identify about 3 out of 10. seening as they were all so different and one picture i even correctly named as what appeared to be a kilm oven and it was. First of all i thought I was crazy, it was chance, then i decided to investigate further, about too weeks later i did some more. 1 target named, a rattlesnake. out of about 10. 5 Other targets were a 'hit' but not specifically named, but i understand unless its named its just 'shapes in the clouds' thats why my dad said, it is all too easy to interperate data to fit your data.
About now i start to realise that this 'stuff' actually works too some level, it was pretty hard to accept. Infact lets face it, it really is insane at first glance. And anyone who would belief it just because you told them or did one demonstration would be
totally gullible, because its wrong, it should not work according too my understanding of science and physics... or current understanding anyway, because the is so much we don't know 'yet'.
Anyway i started learning CRV based remote viewing because i figured it worked from my past experiance of those targets and worth a shot. out of 37 blind targets that i have done so far i have been sure enought to name 5 of them, not in vague terms like a structure, big, hollow, historic near flowing water etc. But actually give them a reasonable description, which rules out 'shapes in the clouds' these were:
1. A wide river in a southan european country with a yellow boat moving down the middle of it
2. A twisted tree
3. A big tree
4. The Pentagon
5. The ark of the covernent
6. The leaning tower of piza
I will now stake my life that RV does work, But I understand everyone being a skeptic which is totally rational. because unless I tried it myself and got it too work too I would not believe it would work either.
WHY don't I apply for the million then?
I don't think I cannot win not because i get 'bad energy' or any of the usual 'psychic' excuses, but because i simply don't believe I will be given a fair unbiased test. So its a waste of time and resources, don't get me wrong EVERYONE would want a free million even if they just give it too the poor.
I thought 'psychic' stuff was all crazy american BS until a few months ago when i watched a documentory on the stargate remote viewing program on the discovery channel, I consider the paranormal smoke and mirrors etc (or did consider it anyway) For a long time i just ignored/dismissed/didn't care about this until i was bored one day and i decided to search for it. Ok i did feel a bit stupid but i was bored ok!
I did 10 targets in a row, just closing my eyes and drawing pictures, labelling the colours etc. I could identify about 3 out of 10. seening as they were all so different and one picture i even correctly named as what appeared to be a kilm oven and it was. First of all i thought I was crazy, it was chance, then i decided to investigate further, about too weeks later i did some more. 1 target named, a rattlesnake. out of about 10. 5 Other targets were a 'hit' but not specifically named, but i understand unless its named its just 'shapes in the clouds' thats why my dad said, it is all too easy to interperate data to fit your data.
About now i start to realise that this 'stuff' actually works too some level, it was pretty hard to accept. Infact lets face it, it really is insane at first glance. And anyone who would belief it just because you told them or did one demonstration would be
totally gullible, because its wrong, it should not work according too my understanding of science and physics... or current understanding anyway, because the is so much we don't know 'yet'.
Anyway i started learning CRV based remote viewing because i figured it worked from my past experiance of those targets and worth a shot. out of 37 blind targets that i have done so far i have been sure enought to name 5 of them, not in vague terms like a structure, big, hollow, historic near flowing water etc. But actually give them a reasonable description, which rules out 'shapes in the clouds' these were:
1. A wide river in a southan european country with a yellow boat moving down the middle of it
2. A twisted tree
3. A big tree
4. The Pentagon
5. The ark of the covernent
6. The leaning tower of piza
I will now stake my life that RV does work, But I understand everyone being a skeptic which is totally rational. because unless I tried it myself and got it too work too I would not believe it would work either.
WHY don't I apply for the million then?
I don't think I cannot win not because i get 'bad energy' or any of the usual 'psychic' excuses, but because i simply don't believe I will be given a fair unbiased test. So its a waste of time and resources, don't get me wrong EVERYONE would want a free million even if they just give it too the poor.
Joe_Black said:
Yet your other post here on JREF says you also know a man who can perform these other psychic feats. These two posts are already at odds with one another.
You must have some pretty strong evidence that the test will be either biased or unfair. You must also have some pretty strong evidence that it is very biased or unfair. Let's say you think it is 90% rigged against you. That would mean your expected win would be $100,000. Do you not want the $100,000, do you think the test is 100% against you, or can you just not do math?
Joe_Black said:
Um, you do know that you get to participate with Mr. Randi in designing the test, don't you? I don't know what sort of unfairness and bias you expect to encounter, but you can put any safeguards against cheating that you like into the protocol.
I have, over the course of the last three months, developed the amazing paranormal ability to fart so forcefully that I am actually propelled around the room. I can achieve continued flight times of well over a minute.
WHY don't I apply for the million then?
I don't think I cannot win not because i get 'bad energy' or any of the usual 'psychic' excuses, but because i simply don't believe I will be given a fair unbiased test. So its a waste of time and resources, don't get me wrong EVERYONE would want a free million even if they just give it too the poor.
WHY don't I apply for the million then?
I don't think I cannot win not because i get 'bad energy' or any of the usual 'psychic' excuses, but because i simply don't believe I will be given a fair unbiased test. So its a waste of time and resources, don't get me wrong EVERYONE would want a free million even if they just give it too the poor.
specious_reasons
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2002
- Messages
- 1,124
Joe_Black said:
1) The million is real and is available. If it were me, I would at least try. The beleivers who have tried the test aren't swayed by their failure, at least in the cases I'm aware of.
2) You have an opportunity to prove that either RV is real, or that Randi and the JREF run unfair tests.
In fact, you could propose the method of testing, and if you don't like the modifications (if any) that JREF proposes, you have more fodder for the "Randi isn't fair" line.
The application and agreement on a protocol does not even require you to get out of your chair.
The "why" you are claiming doesn't ring true, in my opinion.
