• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Consciousness and the Paranormal

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since our topic is Consciousness and the Paranormal we might take up the subject of Remote Viewing, which has demonstrated some impressive examples of paranormal mental functioning. Here is a link to a downloadable copy of the most recent issue of 8 Martinis, published by Daz Smith for the remote viewing community:

Eight Martinis – issue 10
 
You might be more impressed if you read up in the RV field. It's the same story as you're familiar with concerning the ufo subject -- the less people have read in the history and research databases, the easier it is to blow off the significance of the subject.

Speaking of that which is interesting from 'a cultural perspective', that would be, for me, the readiness with which people in our time uncritically deny the experiential reality of consciousness on the basis that the brain is merely a computer and then go on to entertain fantasies that the entire cosmos is a computer. I think it was Einstein who first said that 'if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.' ;)
 
There's that typical assumption that I know nothing about the subject matter I comment on. How could I be not impressed if I'd never exposed myself to the subject matter? I've seen Men Who Stare At Goats, what more do I need to know?

Surely you jest.

UFOs are an objective phenomenon based on real-time physical observation and detection whereas remote viewing is a purely subjective impression of what might be going on.

You're under the impression that remote viewing has not yielded objective information about remote (indeed very remote) targets? Then you do have a lot to learn about it.

Of course I could be wrong. If RV isn't just a vague impression of what might be going on, then please show me consistent verifiable results where someone can remote view something really simple with accuracy, for example write out in the proper sequence a string of easy to identify random symbols printed on a sheet of paper that nobody has seen that is inside a sealed room. To date, nobody I've heard about can do this. It's all vague pictures that statistically seem to indicate some kind of information transfer, but that is all.

The linked article by Hal Puthoff and the additional sources he identifies in the footnotes should give you a good initial footing in the subject.

CIA-Initiated RV Program at SRI
 
Last edited:
You wrote that at your current level of familiarity with remote viewing research the results "seem to indicate some kind of information transfer, but that is all." Yes, indeed, a truly extraordinary kind of veridical information transfer which should suggest to anyone well enough informed about it that it challenges our concept of the nature of reality. As Hal Puthoff expressed it at the end of the linked paper:

Regardless of one's a priori position, however, an unimpassioned observer cannot help but attest to the following fact. Despite the ambiguities inherent in the type of exploration covered in these programs, the integrated results appear to provide unequivocal evidence of a human capacity to access events remote in space and time, however falteringly, by some cognitive process not yet understood. My years of involvement as a research manager in these programs have left me with the conviction that this fact must be taken into account in any attempt to develop an unbiased picture of the structure of reality.

I don't understand how anyone who claims to be interested in mind and consciousness could fail to investigate remote viewing to the extent possible -- given that a great deal of the research and results still remain classified. Despite that reality, enough has been demonstrated to persuade any thinking person that we are just beginning to understand the nature of the mind and its entanglement with information far afield from our local reality.
 
What exactly does that mean?

I believe what it 'means' is that the writer of that quote - "Unlike natural science, spiritual science is not based upon sensory facts, hypotheses, and experiences. Rather, it is upon a profound and differentiated exploration of states of consciousness." - is positing that what is called 'spiritual science' is not based on sensory facts [with the attendant developed hypotheses emerging from sense experiences] but is an exploration of states of consciousness. By the phrase "differentiated exploration" I would hazard that the writer sees different states of consciousness requiring different modes/methods of exploration.

Does that help you?

Always keeping in mind that what I have offered as interpretation is through my own lenses.

The above quote was from an explanatory forward text regarding suprasensory consciousness - that is, consciousness not based on sense experiences.
 
I'll buy into the whole RV phenomenon as soon as someone starts exploiting the 1,000,001 practical applications that RV could be used for, if it was real. Why aren't remote viewers being used to find oil, gas and mineral deposits? Why aren't there remote viewers embedded with every single SWAT and military unit so they can tell them what they're getting into before they kick in doors on terrorism and drug raids? Why weren't we using remote viewers to find the location of IED's and roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, seems like a pretty simple, not to mention dirt cheap way to save a lot of lives and yet it isn't used. Why aren't the FBI and local law enforcement using remote viewers to find kidnap victims, and before you say they are, I'm talking about verified cases where law enforcement confirms that RV led to finding even one kidnap victim, not claims by this or that random psychic or RV'er, there are a million of those out there and when you look into them you inevitably find that there's absolutely nothing to them but claims with no verification. Remember when that rich guy Steve Fosset (I think that was his name) wrecked his plane in the wilderness and nobody knew if he was dead or alive or where he was, why did every single psychic or RV enthusiast who came on C2C and claimed to be able to tell where this guy was get it completely and utterly wrong?

When we discover or develop new scientific principles, those principles are quickly put to good use producing goods and new technologies, why isn't this the case with things like remote viewing or "spiritual science?" Don't give me some schpiel about morality either, human beings could generally give a shit less about morality when there's money to be made and it's inconceivable that someone wouldn't have figured out a way to make money using RV, besides selling you lessons on how to RV. I don't mean to offend anyone and I'm actually pretty open to things like ESP, I'd love to believe that they're real, but I need more than just the will to believe, I need objective proof and demonstrable, verifiable results and so far, I've been unable to find them. Maybe someone here can give me some good, verifiable examples that have confirmation from the actual authorities involved as to the efficacy of RV.
 
Another perspicacious post as usual Muadib. Personally I do believe that there are instances of psychic ability that are real. The problem is that they're transient and leave no material trace evidence, therefore the phenomenon is difficult to study. I've seen what the mystics call a persons aura only once. I had about a minute or so to study it before my friend ( who was another guy ) became too weirded out by it, got up and turned on a bright light and the whole thing receded or collapsed and I've never seen one again. He thought I was either messing with him or going loony, until some years later it happened to him while he was out hiking with a girlfriend of his and saw hers. Some people say they can see them all the time. Maybe that's true.

I've also had other experiences associated with the "spiritual". Plus I think many people who have a strong close relationship with someone ( like children and spouses ) have a sort of "radar love". But I don't jump to conclusions about the exact nature of these phenomena and manufacture all kinds of unsubstantiated beliefs. Some of these instances may be due to entirely natural processes, but perhaps others are induced intentionally by an unseen force. I don't know. The only thing I know is that the study of all these things tends to be based on beliefs, unfounded assumptions, emotional reactions, and other factors rather than on critical thinking. People who are into this stuff seem less interested in knowing what is actually happening than pushing their pet beliefs and worldviews.

Thanks, while I can't claim to have had any psychic or spiritual experiences myself, at least none that I'm aware of, I'm not at all opposed to it being a real thing. Unfortunately, I've been unable to find any true objective proof in my studies and I've actually read quite a bit on RV. The problem with those accounts is that they're generally from the same people who not only want you to buy their book, but also their do it yourself RV kit for $19.95 plus shipping and handling.

Your last sentence sums up the problems with this field quite succinctly, you only need to read a few books by RV proponents and it becomes painfully obvious. One of the many books I read when I was looking at RV was by a guy named Courtney Brown who claims to have developed what he calls SRV or Scientific Remote Viewing. His book then goes on to describe how he remote viewed alien abductions, two separate alien races operating on Earth, (one underground alien civilization made up of refugees from Mars, and one flying around in UFO's) God, Jesus, Buddha, Guru Dev and past Earth and Mars cataclysms.

All of this remote viewing and all of this communion with so called "higher spiritual beings" and yet nothing that can be proven, nothing that can be used beyond your typical moral and spiritual platitudes and nothing that we didn't already either know or speculate about, so of what use is any of it, besides making you feel better about life or easing your fear of death?
 
That's an interesting post that could present a new opening or starting point for discussion in this thread. It takes us into epistemology. Phenomenology has presented a turn in philosophy that has centered epistemological questions in what we can learn -- and the limits of what we can know -- in our embodied experience. It has shown us both a) the limits of our perception (i.e., that what we encounter are phenomena: the phenomenal appearances of things rather than the things in themselves) and b) the nature of our perception as developing from its ponderable primordial beginnings to the recognition of how perception necessarily develops within a context shaped by what we think we know. Many things that we as a species have thought we knew have been placed on the trash heap of rejected (because disproved) 'knowledge'; many others can be and will be as our species' history as "thinkers without final thoughts" continues as long as it continues; and many ideas might well have been placed on that trash heap presumptively, without actually being disproved. In the meantime, it seems to me, we traffic in hypotheses and theories about the nature of reality.

As for ourselves (how we should live, what we should do), phenomenological philosophers and others see implicit guidelines for behavior in what we can surmise from our own experience about our own nature and what, on that basis, we owe to others in general and inclusively.

This is a good blog and podcast on philosophy:

The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

I'm listening to this episode on Karl Popper (falisifiability and epistemology) now:

Topic for #82: Karl Popper on Scientific Method | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

Popper was writing in response to the Logical Positivists and argued that "epistemological optimism" (that there is something that we can know and that there is this iron clad, concrete way of getting at it) and “epistemological pessimism” (we can't know anything) are extremes along on a continuum, both of which ultimately justify political stances.

In The Open Society and Its Enemies, part of Popper’s agenda is to talk about how science progresses and the value of philosophy in a way that encourages us not to think in absolutes about knowledge and its foundations, about absolutist systems of epistemology because these can contribute to a point of view that can lead to totalitarianism.

Popper recognizes the anti-authoritarianism in Descartes and Bacon – as they were reacting to a totalitarian regime in their time - so that by pointing to science, they were pointing to a way to show that the conclusions of this regime are deeply flawed and that that knowledge is accessible to everybody . . . epistemological optimism was a foundation of liberalism, but it ultimately takes you to a new kind of authoritarianism. Descartes' and Bacon's version of induction substituted one kind of divine criteria for another.
 
I wrote to ufo: "You're under the impression that remote viewing has not yielded objective information about remote (indeed very remote) targets? Then you do have a lot to learn about it."

That's not what I said. What I said is, "It's all vague pictures that statistically seem to indicate some kind of information transfer, but that is all."

But the images seen and the information obtained are not "all vague pictures ...etc." The images are specific and the information is astonishingly accurate in a number of cases. There's something happening here and you're not willing to grapple with it. Have you read Puthoff yet and consulted the further material cited in his footnotes? Is there any point at all in attempting to have a discussion of the RV subject with you and some others?

Actually, I'm okay with your refusal to enter into the subject matter. Your choice and not my problem. :)
 
I wrote to ufo: "You're under the impression that remote viewing has not yielded objective information about remote (indeed very remote) targets? Then you do have a lot to learn about it."

But the images seen and the information obtained are not "all vague pictures ...etc." The images are specific and the information is astonishingly accurate in a number of cases. There's something happening here and you're not willing to grapple with it. Have you read Puthoff yet and consulted the further material cited in his footnotes? Is there any point at all in attempting to have a discussion of the RV subject with you and some others?

Actually, I'm okay with your refusal to enter into the subject matter. Your choice and not my problem. :)

Dean Radin's "show me" page: http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm from his blog: Entangled Minds

lists "Selected Peer-Reviewed Publications on Psi Research"

Downloadable articles published mainly in the 21st century, with some papers of historical interest and other resources.

there is a lot here to go through (100 or more papers under nine section headings), lots of meta-analysis and lots of critique and response . . .

under the section Telepathy and ESP:
Targ&Puthoff(1974).Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding.

Puthoff&Targ(1976).A perceptual channel for information transfer over kilometer distance: Historical perspective and recent research

Eisenberg &Donderi(1979).Telepathic transfer of emotional information in humans.

Bem&Honorton(1994).Does psi exist?

Hyman (1994).Anomaly or artifact?Comments onBemandHonorton

Bem(1994).Response to Hyman

Milton & Wiseman (1999).Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer

Storm &Ertel(2001).Does Psi Exist? Comments on Milton and Wiseman's (1999) Meta-Analysis of Ganzfeld Research

Milton & Wiseman (2001).Does Psi Exist? Reply to Storm andErtel(2001)

Sherwood & Roe (2003).A Review of Dream ESP Studies Conducted Since the Maimonides Dream ESPProgramme

Delgado-Romero & Howard (2005).Finding and Correcting Flawed Research Literatures

Hastings (2007).Comment on Delgado-Romero and Howard

Radin (2007).Finding Or Imagining Flawed Research?

Storm et al (2010). Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the Noise Reduction Model in Parapsychology

Storm et al (2010). A Meta-AnalysisWithNothing to Hide: Reply to Hyman (2010)

Tressoldi (2011).Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: the case of non-local perception, a classical and Bayesian review of evidences

Tressoldi et al (2011). Mental Connection at Distance: Useful for Solving Difficult Tasks?

Williams (2011).Revisiting the Ganzfeld ESP Debate: A Basic Review and Assessment

Rouderet al (2013). A Bayes Factor Meta-Analysis of Recent Extrasensory Perception Experiments: Comment on Storm, Tressoldi, and DiRisio(2010)

Storm et al (2013). Testing the Storm et al. (2010) Meta-Analysis Using Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches: Reply toRouderet al. (2013)

There is a Theory section and also one entitled Potential Applications
Carpenter (2011). Laboratory psi effects may be put to practical use: Two pilot studies

Schwartz (1980/2000). Location and reconstruction of a Byzantine structure … [by remote viewing]
 
Dean Radin's "show me" page: http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm from his blog: Entangled Minds

lists "Selected Peer-Reviewed Publications on Psi Research"

Downloadable articles published mainly in the 21st century, with some papers of historical interest and other resources.

there is a lot here to go through (100 or more papers under nine section headings), lots of meta-analysis and lots of critique and response . . .

under the section Telepathy and ESP:
Targ&Puthoff(1974).Information transmission under conditions of sensory shielding.

Puthoff&Targ(1976).A perceptual channel for information transfer over kilometer distance: Historical perspective and recent research
Eisenberg &Donderi(1979).Telepathic transfer of emotional information in humans.

Bem&Honorton(1994).Does psi exist?

Hyman (1994).Anomaly or artifact?Comments onBemandHonorton

Bem(1994).Response to Hyman

Milton & Wiseman (1999).Does Psi Exist? Lack of Replication of an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer

Storm &Ertel(2001).Does Psi Exist? Comments on Milton and Wiseman's (1999) Meta-Analysis of Ganzfeld Research

Milton & Wiseman (2001).Does Psi Exist? Reply to Storm andErtel(2001)

Sherwood & Roe (2003).A Review of Dream ESP Studies Conducted Since the Maimonides Dream ESPProgramme

Delgado-Romero & Howard (2005).Finding and Correcting Flawed Research Literatures

Hastings (2007).Comment on Delgado-Romero and Howard

Radin (2007).Finding Or Imagining Flawed Research?

Storm et al (2010). Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the Noise Reduction Model in Parapsychology

Storm et al (2010). A Meta-AnalysisWithNothing to Hide: Reply to Hyman (2010)

Tressoldi (2011).Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: the case of non-local perception, a classical and Bayesian review of evidences

Tressoldi et al (2011). Mental Connection at Distance: Useful for Solving Difficult Tasks?

Williams (2011).Revisiting the Ganzfeld ESP Debate: A Basic Review and Assessment

Rouderet al (2013). A Bayes Factor Meta-Analysis of Recent Extrasensory Perception Experiments: Comment on Storm, Tressoldi, and DiRisio(2010)

Storm et al (2013). Testing the Storm et al. (2010) Meta-Analysis Using Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches: Reply toRouderet al. (2013)

There is a Theory section and also one entitled Potential Applications
Carpenter (2011). Laboratory psi effects may be put to practical use: Two pilot studies

Schwartz (1980/2000). Location and reconstruction of a Byzantine structure … [by remote viewing]


When you find just one with definitive verifiable evidence please let me know.
 
Last edited:
When you find just one with definitive verifiable evidence please let me know.

LOL . . . sounds good man - although I think you have more time than I do, at least I hope you won't be working 12 hour days this week! . . . I do want to have a look at the four studies in General Overviews and Critiques and at least one of the series of what I call "critique and response" papers under Telepathy and ESP

for example:

Bem & Honorton (1994). Does psi exist?
Hyman (1994). Anomaly or artifact? Comments on Bem and Honorton
Bem (1994). Response to Hyman

and try to summarize them for my own purposes . . . I really don't know if my mathematics is up to it - I have only a very general understanding of statistics and meta-analysis, so anyone with a background who wants to have a look and see what they think, that would be great.

Why don't you have a look just at the papers in the Telepathy and ESP section and let us know what you think of each study?
 
Ok, I started with this study under General Overviews & Critiques:

Utts (1996). An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Utts1996.pdf

it took a couple of hours reading and note-taking and working through the math in Appendix 1 (although I don't claim to fully understand it) and it turned out to be a good one to start with because it is clearly and concise and states a strong conclusion:

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government- sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of lab- oratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.
. . .
It is recommended that future experiments focus on understanding how this phenomenon works, and on how to make it as useful as possible. There is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data.

An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning
Jessica Utts

http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Utts1996.pdf

Originally published in Journal of Scientific Exploration
Journal of Scientific Exploration

Jessica Utts is currently at the Department of Statistics, University of California, Irvine
JESSICA UTTS' HOME PAGE

I took a lot of notes and will make a separate post for the ideas in the paper that stood out to me.
 
Good to see you around, Steve. Great posts.
grinning-smiley-003.gif
 
An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioningby Jessica Utts

http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Utts1996.pdf

NOTES, things of interest, things to look for in other studies, questions

a few things that stood out for me, maybe they will be of interest to encourage others to read some of these studies -

  • psychic functioning is between small and medium in effect size
  • "Free response" remote viewing, in which subjects describe a target, was much more successful than "forced choice" experiments, in which subjects were asked to choose from a small set of possibilities. (SAIC work addresses potential explanations)
  • *six selected individuals far outperformed unselected subjects - this provides a type of replicability that helps substantiate the validity of the results.

  • . . . well-controlled laboratory experiments should show a consistent level of functioning. . . . In this report we will show that replicability in that sense has been achieved.

2.2.1 P-values and Comparison with Chance

  • -Notice that when chance alone is at work, we erroneously find a statistically significant result about 5 percent of the time. -most reasonable scientists require replication of non-chance results before they are convinced that chance can be ruled out.

2.2.2 Replication and Effect Sizes

  • . . . true replication of experimental results should focus on . . .effect size. . . This is because p-value is heavily dependent on the size of the study. (interesting point here)
  • p-values should not be used to define whether or not a replication of an experimental result was "successful." - should be one that achieves an effect that is within expected statistical variability of the original result
  • effect size 0 is consistent with chance, by convention in the social sciences, 0.2 is small, 0.5 medium and 0.8 as large.A medium effect size is visible to the naked eye of a careful observer, large effect size is supposed to be evident to any observer.


2.2.3 Randomness and Rank-Order Judging.

  • This scoring method is conservative in the sense that it gives no extra credit for an excellent match.

*2.3 Methodological Issues

There are a number of places in remote viewing experiment where information could be conveyed by normal means –

early SRI experiments suffered from flaws but later SRI/SAIC done with reasonable methodological rigor (see Appendix 2)

list of methodological issues (in its entirety)

No one who has knowledge of the specific target should have any contact with the viewer until after the response has been safely secured.

No one who has knowledge of the specific target or even of whether or not the session was successful should have any contact with the judge until after that task has been completed.

No one who has knowledge of the specific target should have access to the response until after the judging has been completed.

Targets and decoys used in judging should be selected using a well-tested randomization device.

Duplicate sets of targets photographs should be used, one during the experiment and one during the judging, so that no cues (like fingerprints) can be inserted onto the target that would help the judge recognize it. The criterion for stopping an experiment should be defined in advance so that it is not called to a halt when the results just happen to be favor- able. Generally, that means specifying the number of trials in advance, but some statistical procedures require or allow other stopping rules. The important point is that the rule be defined in advance in such a way that there is no ambiguity about when to stop.

Reasons, if any, for excluding data must be defined in advance and followed consistently, and should not be dependent on the data. For exam ple, a rule specifying that a trial could be aborted if the viewer felt ill would be legitimate, but only if the trial was aborted before anyone involved in that decision knew the correct target.


Statistical analyses to be used must be planned in advance of collecting the data so that a method most favorable to the data isn't selected posthoc. If multiple methods of analysis are used the corresponding conclu-sions must recognize that fact.


2.4 Prima Facie Evidence

  • Notice that standard statistical methods cannot be used in these cases be-cause there is no standard for probabilistic comparison. But evidence gained from applied remote viewing cannot be dismissed as inconsequential just be-cause we cannot assign specific probabilities to the results.

  • problems with anecdotal results


 
This will finish up my notes on the first study, sections 4.6, 6 and 7 below were the most interesting to me:

An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioningby Jessica Utts
http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Utts1996.pdf

Lots of interesting ideas and questions to take into reading other studies - there are about a hundred peer-reviewed articled on Radin's evidence site:

http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

maybe there is a black swan or two in the flock . . .

3.4 Consistency with Other Laboratories in the Same Era

  • These consistent results across laboratories help refute the idea that the successful experiments at any one lab are the result of fraud, sloppy protocols or some methodological problem and also provide an indication of what can be expected in future experiments.

4. The SAIC Era -An Overview

The review team decided to focus more intensively on the experiments conducted at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), because they provide a manageable yet varied set to examine in detail. They were guided by a Scientific Oversight Committee consisting of experts in a variety of disciplines, including a winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, internationally known professors of statistics, psychology, neuroscience and astronomy and a medical doctor who is a retired U.S. Army Major General. Further, we have access to the details for the full set of SAIC experiments, unlike for the set conducted at SRI. Whatever details may be missing from the written reports are obtainable from the principal investigator, Dr. Edwin May, to whom we have been given unlimited access.

4.2 The Ten Experiments
4.3 Assessing the Remote Viewing Experiments by Homogeneous Sets of Sessions


  • summary tables in the preceding two sections

4.4 Consistency and Replicability of the Remote Viewing Results

One of the most important hallmarks of science is replicability. A phenomenon with statistical variability . . . should exhibit about the same level of success in the long run, over repeated experiments of a similar nature. The remote viewing experiments are no exception. . . .

The overall effect sizes for two of the three, viewers 009 and 372, were very close to the SRI effect size of 0.385 for these subjects, at 0.35 and 0.34, respectively, and the 0.35 effect size for Viewer 009 was very similar to his 0.363 effect size in the report by May, Lantz and Piantineda (1994). Therefore, we see a repeated and, more importantly, hopefully a repeatable level of functioning above chance for these individuals. An effect of this size should be reliable enough to be sustained in any properly conducted experiment with enough trials to obtain the long run statistical replicability required to rule out chance.

It is also important to notice that viewers 009 and 372 did well on the same
experiments and poorly on the same experiments. In fact the correlation between
their effect sizes across experiments is 0.901, which is very close to a
perfect correlation of 1 .O.


4.5 Methodological Issues in the Remote Viewing Experiments at SAIC
*4.6 Was Anything Learned at SAIC?


theory

change in visual entropy

Each of the five senses with which we are familiar is a change detector. Our
vision is most readily drawn to something that is moving, and in fact if our eyes
are kept completely still, we cease to see at all. Similarly, we hear because of
moving air, and our attention is drawn to sudden changes in sound levels.
Other senses behave similarly. Thus, it is reasonable that if there really is a
"psychic sense" then it would follow that same pattern.

It is worth speculating on what this might mean for determining how psychic
functioning works. Physicists are currently (published 1996) grappling with the concept of time, and cannot rule out precognition as being consistent with current understanding. Perhaps it is the case that we do have a psychic sense, much like our other senses, and that it works by scanning the future for possibilities of major change much as our eyes scan the environment for visual change and our ears are responsive to auditory change. That idea is consistent with anecdotal reports of precognition, which are generally concerned with events involving major life change. Laboratory remote viewing may in part work by someone directing the viewer to focus on a particular point in the future, that in which he or she receives the feedback from the experiment. It may also be the case that this same sense can scan the environment in actual time and detect change as well.

4.6.2. Remote Staring

4.6.3 Enhanced Binary Computer Guessing.

5. External Validation: Replications of Other Experiments
*
Ganzfield experiments

5.3 Conclusions About External Replication

The results shown in Table 3 show that remote viewing has been conceptually (?) replicated across a number of laboratories, by various experimenters and in different cultures. This is a robust effect that, were it not in such an unusual domain, would no longer be questioned by science as a real phenomenon. It is unlikely that methodological problems could account for the remarkable consistency of results shown in Table 3.

6. Is Remote Viewing Useful?

Even if we were all to agree that anomalous cognition is possible, there re-mains the question of whether or not it would have any practical use for government purposes. The answer to that question is beyond the scope of this report, but some speculations can be made about how to increase the usefulness.

First, it appears that anomalous cognition is to some extent possible in the general population. None of the ganzfeld experiments used exclusively selected subjects. However, it also appears that certain individuals possess more talent than others, and that it is easier to find those individuals than to train people. It also appears to be the case that certain individuals are better at some tasks than others. For instance, Viewer 372 at SAIC appears to have a facility with describing technical sites.

Second, if remote viewing is to be useful, the end users must be trained in what it can do and what it cannot. Given our current level of understanding, it is rarely 100 percent accurate, and there is no reliable way to learn what is accurate and what is not. The same is probably true of most sources of intelligence data.

Third, what is useful for one purpose may not be useful for another. For in-
stance, suppose a remote viewer could describe the setting in which a hostage is being held. That information may not be any use at all to those unfamiliar with the territory, but could be useful to those familiar with it.


7. Conclusions and Recommendations

It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been
demonstrated.
This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria. The phenomenon has been replicated in a number of forms across laboratories and cultures. The various experiments in which it has been observed have been different enough that if some subtle methodological problems can explain the results, then there would have to be a different explanation for each type of experiment, yet the impact would have to be similar across experiments and laboratories. If fraud were responsible, similarly, it
would require an equivalent amount of fraud on the part of a large number of experimenters or an even larger number of subjects.

What is not so clear is that we have progressed very far in understanding the mechanism for anomalous cognition. Senders do not appear to be necessary at all; feedback of the correct answer may or may not be necessary. Distance in time and space do not seem to be an impediment. Beyond those conclusions, we know very little.

I believe that it would be wasteful of valuable resources to continue to look
for proof. No one who has examined all of the data across laboratories, taken as a collective whole, has been able to suggest methodological or statistical
problems to explain the ever-increasing and consistent results to date.
Re-
sources should be directed to the pertinent questions about how this ability
works. I am confident that the questions are no more elusive than any other
questions in science dealing with small to medium sized effects, and that if ap
propriate resources are targeted to appropriate questions, we can have answers within the next decade.


. . . and now on to the next study . . .
 
A question for the thread: do any of you use or know anyone who does any "paranormal" methods in your daily life/on a regular basis? Do you use use, for example, RV to find lost car keys or do you regularly use telepathy with friends/family members (including pets!) or other "anamolous" methods of getting practical things done.

I'm wondering about regular use more than once in a life-time experiences . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top