PF Remote Viewing Test: Object Revealed Any Winner? P. 7

Check the options that best describe the dominant appearance of the object

  • Box

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • Ellipsoidal / Spherical

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Cylindrical / tubular

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • Segmented

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • Disk / Planar

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • Opaque

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Clear

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • Bright colors

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Dark colors

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • White

    Votes: 3 21.4%

  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .

megashawn

Science Advisor
435
0
Uhh, consulting the spirits again (no, not the mystical ones, my bottle of everclear)

The peace of metal seems to be in the shape of a frying pan.

Or is it a shot glass?
 
354
0
I guess something spherical, if I can be that vague. A stress ball maybe?
 

Zero

I'm thinking that the fault lies in the sender...
 

hypnagogue

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,221
2
What a surprise that 90% of this thread is dedicated to mocking the test. What a shameful attitude to hold for anyone who takes the 'objectivity' of science seriously.
 

Njorl

Science Advisor
245
10
Originally posted by hypnagogue
What a surprise that 90% of this thread is dedicated to mocking the test. What a shameful attitude to hold for anyone who takes the 'objectivity' of science seriously.
You must have some other way of calculating 90% than I do. It was closer to 10% than 90%. Or is any attempt by people of a scientific mindset to test paranormal phenomena intrinsically mockery?

Njorl
 

hypnagogue

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,221
2
Not taking the test seriously amounts to implicit mockery; there has been some of that (your initial post included) in addition to the explicit kind. There is obviously some kind of methodology involved in remote viewing, whether it is valid or not; ignoring this aspect and blindly guessing is a passive aggressive attempt to discredit the test.
 

Njorl

Science Advisor
245
10
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Not taking the test seriously amounts to implicit mockery; there has been some of that (your initial post included) in addition to the explicit kind. There is obviously some kind of methodology involved in remote viewing, whether it is valid or not; ignoring this aspect and blindly guessing is a passive aggressive attempt to discredit the test.
Well, you seem to believe you are telepathic, and are able to read my mind. You are wrong. You jumped to the conclusion that I was not making a serious effort. This is a mistake many advocates of the paranormal make. They believe no skeptic is capable of objective testing when exactly the opposite is true.

I will describe the nature of my so-called mocking guess. I looked at the linked bag. I concentrated. I got nothing. I thought, "what could I see if this sort of thing is real." Some funny ideas occurred to me. I dismissed them and decided to take this seriously. I relaxed and decided not to try forcing anything. I couldn't help but try to logically deduce what was in the bag - T-shirt occurred to me too. I decided to think about other things so no forced thoughts would interfere. While reading my email for work, an image of the gold box that amazon.com uses for its "Gold Box Deals" flashed in my memeory. I decided this was the best possible image I could get. It seemed apropos to me that it was an internet mechanism, since I was given the image of the bag over the internet. I went to amazon.com and opened my "Gold Box" offers. The first one was the radio I described.

Njorl
 

hypnagogue

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,221
2
I retract my comments about your post in that case, Njorl. Your guess seemed too specific to be a genuine effort.

However, I would like to re-emphasize that, valid or not, there is a specific methodology for RV, as indicated in a previous post by PJ. If we are to truly take this test seriously, anyone who tries his/her hand should thoroughly familiarize him/herself with the established procedures and try in earnest to apply them before attempting an answer.

Of course, this goes for the specific set up of the test as well. If the setup of the test is inadequate, a new one should be set up to mirror precedents in the field if we take the claims seriously and expect to see any meaningful results.
 
Last edited:

Zero

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Not taking the test seriously amounts to implicit mockery; there has been some of that (your initial post included) in addition to the explicit kind. There is obviously some kind of methodology involved in remote viewing, whether it is valid or not; ignoring this aspect and blindly guessing is a passive aggressive attempt to discredit the test.
I know I hear this enough to be an expert...LIGHTEN UP! Have a little fun, dude...

And, I still think I got it right and Ivan keeps switching objects on me.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Re: Well, OK, but no namecalling till I leave!

Originally posted by PJ
These answers are great!

For a useful debunking essay, visit the website of Brian Josephson (a Nobel winner in physics, out of Cambridge) for Drasin's: How To Debunk Just About Anything....As a last note: never believe anything you hear in the media. Well this probably goes for any topic, but especially RV!

PJ
http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/
Hey PJ,
Thanks for stopping in; and for your detailed response. It seems that for a legitimate test of RV we would need to modify our little test. Also, what a link! WOW. Please feel free to join in the conversations. We always appreciate new insights – no pun intended.

You should have at least made a guess...you still could have gotten it right by luck. Wouldn't that be hilarious?

If we can get any trained RVers to participate I will change the test to make it appropriate to the effort.

Thanks again,
Ivan
 
Last edited:

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by hypnagogue
I retract my comments about your post in that case, Njorl. Your guess seemed too specific to be a genuine effort.

However, I would like to re-emphasize that, valid or not, there is a specific methodology for RV, as indicated in a previous post by PJ. If we are to truly take this test seriously, anyone who tries his/her hand should thoroughly familiarize him/herself with the established procedures and try in earnest to apply them before attempting an answer.

Of course, this goes for the specific set up of the test as well. If the setup of the test is inadequate, a new one should be set up to mirror precedents in the field if we take the claims seriously and expect to see any meaningful results.
Hey hypnagogue,
I posted this somewhat in fun, but I have also stuck to procedure such that any positive results would still be interesting. I hope no one thinks that I mean to mock anyone; I don't. I would be glad to develop a more serious test if we can get any trained RVers to participate. So far PJ is the only person willing to drop in.

I have been engaged in a slightly terse discussion with a very well known remote viewer, but I don't think he is going to make a showing. He seems a little hostile in spite of my best efforts. Hmmm. Whether he is legitimate or not, I was hoping for a little more cooperation. Note that I have also received several invitations to study remote viewing.

Sorry Zero. I haven't touched the bag since starting the test. You have failed as a psychic. Get over it...life goes on.
 
Last edited:

hypnagogue

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,221
2
Originally posted by Zero
I know I hear this enough to be an expert...LIGHTEN UP! Have a little fun, dude...
Wait-- so you're saying it's ok to have fun at the expense of something by mocking it in a close-minded, unenlightened fashion? Hmm. I don't see how making fun of ideas based on insulting stereotypes is supposed to be humorous.
 

hypnagogue

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,221
2
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Hey hypnagogue,
I posted this somewhat in fun, but I have also stuck to procedure such that any positive results would still be interesting. I hope no one thinks that I mean to mock anyone; I don't.
I don't think it was your intent to be mocking at all. Even if the spirit of the thread is in fun, I just find it annoying that some people are approaching it as an excuse for outright mockery.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
For those who missed this about a month ago, here is a link to another test.

http://www.mdani.demon.co.uk/para/esp1.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174

PJ

6
0
LOL. Yeah, 98% of the remote viewing world won't talk with you much, won't show you anything or help you get to that, but they will SELL you Methods To Omniscience(tm). (If you're not yet omniscient, still have money, but have maxxed out your current MTO, you will find there are several others, all of whom will assure you they are the Real Deal. In fact, I'll bet your purse won't outlast your ambition.)

IMO if psi exists at all, it is something innate in the species. Or maybe it's not really a 'thing' at all, it's just us trying to slap a label on the rare ability some humans have to subconsciously process information we all get but have learned since babyhood to ignore, as it doesn't fit in the 'consensus reality' of the world around us and parents.

By the way there's a book from the 80's, "Deciphering the Senses", that postulated that a good % of what people call psychic is actually information gleaned from physiological senses. I think it was that book which suggested science has nailed down about 17 senses -- not just the 5 obvious ones we know -- and of the additional senses, we don't yet really know how much info can be transferred.

For example at one time, certain things would be considered psychic, that we now know might be a person's unusually good ability to subconsciously process info about the frequencies in voice, or pheremones. (It's for this reason that parapsychology science is always double blind. It's also for this reason and others that CSL labs, at least, has the psychic do the session, and THEN the computer generates 5 'potential' targets, and THEN the computer chooses one of those decoys to be "the target" for that trial. So there is no possibility of fraud or collusion or accidental info transfer.)

I suspect that soldiers who survive repeatedly despite all odds, incredibly successful CEOs, unusually inventive scientists, and others along those lines are all actually displaying some of what some might call psi; they call it "a gut feeling" or "inspiration" or "being in the zone" or whatever, but the labels don't much matter; that gut feeling that knows when to zig when the bullet zags can be called anything we want but it saves the guy's life regardless. (There is actually some empirical evidence that psi may tend to show up as a 'survival skill'.)

Anyway, in response to a comment earlier, appreciate the objective fairness, but seriously, a given 'psychic methodology' some will mistakenly label as remote viewing is not required for successfully obtaining psychic information. Humans have been doing this probably since time began; psi wasn't invented in the 1970's or anything. Of course, there have always been about 999 wishful thinkers, poorly talented, confused and/or fraudulent persons who think and/or pretend they are getting psi info, for every rare person who can do it anywhere near semi-consistently (even for the best viewers it is not consistent. Who knows why. The Sidereal Time papers (jsasoc.com/library/) don't answer any questions--only add more--but do cause one to think on that a bit more).... just to confuse everybody.

The term 'Remote Viewing' was coined in the ASPR lab back in the 70's. The psychic mostly under study then was Ingo Swann, who said he thought remote 'sensing' was more accurate, but the scientists liked 'viewing', probably because they weren't the ones doing it and it sounded cool. It was coined to refer specifically to "psychic functioning done within an approved scientific protocol." (After all, the world already had plenty of terms that meant "psychic". They were trying to find one that would indicate it was 'scientifically' done. Of course the public glommed onto it instantly and now the term is undifferentiated from any other. CSL came up with 'Anomalous Cognition' which is so stupendously boring, nobody in the public appears to want to steal that one.)

In the early 80's, Swann came up with (mostly compiled from existing research and knowns) a psychic method he thought ought to work for people not as nearly-omniscient as himself. They called the rules of this methodology "the protocols" (the military loves that word). The physicist in charge of the project humored him by letting him train people, but apparently didn't take him seriously enough to bother baseline testing any of these people ahead of time. (Which only led to immense confusion later, as a bunch of guys psychologically were certain that 'the magic methods' made it possible for them, whereas most people who'd been brought into the lab off the street and tested felt that it was apparently innate in them. This continues in present-day confusion where methods become doctrine and RV groups become cults. Sigh.)

Alas the term "the protocols" meaning methods, and the phrase "the protocol" meaning the scientific circumstance psi was to be done in IN ORDER TO CALL IT REMOTE VIEWING, have been completely mixed up and the general public is hopelessly confused. So is about 98% of the layman's remote viewing world (to include retired military). People will tell you that you need to learn 'the remote viewing protocols' and what they mean is, you need to pay them money to learn their MethodX.

Now, the fact that the science done that got funding, continued funding, and has best demonstrated RV (not just in the lab but on senate subcommittee floors and more) most the time did NOT use that method--or any particular method in most cases--is usually not mentioned.

There have been a couple other internet attempts to demonstrate remote viewing. In both instances, the 'challenging' group was either painfully ignorant of what was a legitimate way to go about it (a case of as usual, testing what they THINK psi is supposed to be, and not what it is, because they wouldn't deign to study the damn subject first to educate themselves, as they figure there is 'nothing to be educated about'), or in one case, where some Official Skeptics(tm) dropped in to help, obviously knew something about RV--and geared it toward making success nearly impossible.

For example, I mentioned previously about info but lack of specific naming etc. There was this one 'trial' where a target was to be presented with several 'decoys' and a judge was to see what the sessions matched best. (I'm remembering here; very hazy, I admit.) Several of the sessions described a human, male, somewhat famous, some other info. Every damned decoy was a human, male, somewhat famous! I mean the point is that if the target pool is close to infinite, I mean it could be the White house or a goldfish pond or a corral or a volcano or Mars or DNA or god only knows what, then even getting the facts they did was pretty damn good. But you can't mix in 'decoys' that at a 'general' concept or descriptive level are nearly indistinguishable from the target--that is pointedly unfair; it was done deliberately to confuse, to make it impossible, rather than choosing, as science does, clearly defined targets/decoys so if the viewer IS describing the target, it is apparent at least somewhat above chance.

This kind of thing has given a lot of viewers a rather low opinion of the intentions, ethics and legitimacy of the endless cast of folks who want to challenge something.

The biggest problem in judging (in addition to the 'subjective' nature of it, but what can be done...) is that you don't realize till you start trying to judge this stuff, just how similar seemingly disparate (computer selected) targets are. In fairness, research shows that about 30% of all data provided by psychics will apply to about 30% of all targets. So this suggests that even if they described a different target they might get some data right about the real target; or even if they described the target well, some of their data is still going to apply to the 'decoys' as well. There are many different ways to do analysis on psychic sessions.

It's an interesting lesson in geometry, how certain shapes/dynamics seem to make up our universe. I once reviewed a lab test where the viewer, with a target of a waterfall, doing a real quick 5-10 minute 'gestalt' session (usually all that is required in the lab) had described a very tall, stone or rock wall, water at the bottom, and quick-sketched this little 'splay' of water, which had just a few lines going 'out' like a splash. Well that was very low-level and basic but seems pretty clear. But one of the random decoys was this city in france with super tall stone-wall buildings over a canal... so the water was kind of in 'lines' at the bottom. And another random decoy was this south american pyramid, tall stone wall of sorts, set right next to this agricultural area with irrigation canals in lines near the bottom of it, going out...)

I wish I had the ref for this... I could find it but it'd take awhile. A graduate paper was done some years ago that explored scientists' knowledge about, and opinion about, psychic functioning. It was a really interesting paper. What it showed was that almost none of the non-parapsychology scientists had ANY CLUE about the actual science. They didn't read the journals, they didn't talk to the scientists, they literally just were totally ignorant about it. Nearly all the information they "thought they knew" about the topic came from the media--TV, movies, magazines! (Maybe I should consider "Sliders" to be physics edu? Or the way a teenager with a laptop can press 3 buttons and hack into national security databases? :-)) And yet, they held what they considered a "scientific opinion" about it (almost invariably negative)--even though they actually had no science-based knowledge available at all for forming any such opinion. That was kind of enlightening. Clearly a cultural bias from the start.

I'm out of room so I'll shut up now.

PJ
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Very nice. Thank you. :wink:
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
from PJ
There is actually some empirical evidence that psi may tend to show up as a 'survival skill'
I have seen one report of precognitive reflex actions in the order of 1/3 seconds. It was claimed that this was measured using random images of soothing, relaxing pictures of green valleys, happy children and such, and then disturbing pictures from auto accident and murder scenes etc. It was claimed that with a high degree of certainty, such as in 80% of those tested, reflexes were frequently measured before a disturbing image was seen.

Do you know about this or where to find it?
 

PJ

6
0
Even if the spirit of the thread is in fun, I just find it annoying that some people are approaching it as an excuse for outright mockery.
Well, it's always that way.

I used to be a medical-model skeptic myself--and as a hypnotist, used to give presentations making enormous fun of psychics and 'abductees', man, great warm up material! --until some real esoteric experiences started the crowbar routine on my own belief systems. (Sort of a karmic punishment I figure, at least, I would figure that if I actually believed in karma.)

So I understand. What I believe now, some people think is hilarious. Funny, because I think about what I believed then and it now seems rigid and even simplistic and silly; to each their own!

Maybe we can set up something workable, not as challenge/test one-off thing, but as a sort of review of what some layman viewers can do on a variety of targets people here could choose, within certain parameters (I'd quote from a McMoneagle book for the basics, he's the most experienced science lab viewer and adamant about doing things in a proper science protocol, as well as doing things that are practical to what remote viewing is generally likely to be capable of).

I am almost finished with some software for double-blind practice and projects in one of my (several) online projects, this one called Ten Thousand Roads (a forum, http://www.tenthousandroads.com/wbbs/ ). The s/w is getting close to done, at least the first part. For example we could have some people in this forum set up targets but NOT put the photo feedback in the database (to prevent my seeing it and any possible fraud of course).

We could have viewers submit sessions in this software, for that target, and then at a specified close time, the moment you uploaded the photo feedback for the target, you'd get a linked list of the sessions that you could spider out for review (and at that point, people who'd submitted sessions would get feedback on the target).

This wouldn't be an effort to prove anything to anybody. In fact, it might just prove that most us layman viewers are dismally untalented!

But it might be an example of what viewers do and the way they do it. If y'all can wait till the s/w is done enough for me to plug in something specific for this, I think that would be fun.

We could have say 10 different people each select a target and I could give them access to go upload it at a specified date/time to get the sessions in-system for that.

Best regards,
PJ

P.S. I'm a she.
 
Last edited:

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by PJ
P.S. I'm a she.
So much for my remote viewing.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by Njorl
I looked at the linked bag. I concentrated. I got nothing. I thought, "what could I see if this sort of thing is real." Some funny ideas occurred to me. I dismissed them and decided to take this seriously. I relaxed and decided not to try forcing anything. I couldn't help but try to logically deduce what was in the bag - T-shirt occurred to me too. I decided to think about other things so no forced thoughts would interfere. While reading my email for work, an image of the gold box that amazon.com uses for its "Gold Box Deals" flashed in my memeory. I decided this was the best possible image I could get. It seemed apropos to me that it was an internet mechanism, since I was given the image of the bag over the internet. I went to amazon.com and opened my "Gold Box" offers. The first one was the radio I described.

Njorl
Njorl, in all seriousness, without disclosing anything more, I will say that you should work on this some more just for fun.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by PJ
Maybe we can set up something workable, not as challenge/test one-off thing, but as a sort of review of what some layman viewers can do on a variety of targets people here could choose, within certain parameters (I'd quote from a McMoneagle book for the basics, he's the most experienced science lab viewer and adamant about doing things in a proper science protocol, as well as doing things that are practical to what remote viewing is generally likely to be capable of).

I am almost finished with some software for double-blind practice and projects in one of my (several) online projects, this one called Ten Thousand Roads (a forum, http://www.tenthousandroads.com/wbbs/ ). The s/w is getting close to done, at least the first part. For example we could have some people in this forum set up targets but NOT put the photo feedback in the database (to prevent my seeing it and any possible fraud of course).

We could have viewers submit sessions in this software, for that target, and then at a specified close time, the moment you uploaded the photo feedback for the target, you'd get a linked list of the sessions that you could spider out for review (and at that point, people who'd submitted sessions would get feedback on the target).

This wouldn't be an effort to prove anything to anybody. In fact, it might just prove that most us layman viewers are dismally untalented!

But it might be an example of what viewers do and the way they do it. If y'all can wait till the s/w is done enough for me to plug in something specific for this, I think that would be fun.

We could have say 10 different people each select a target and I could give them access to go upload it at a specified date/time to get the sessions in-system for that.

Best regards,
PJ

P.S. I'm a she.
I like the sound of this. More later...
 

PJ

6
0
images of soothing, relaxing pictures of green valleys, happy children and such, and then disturbing pictures from auto accident and murder scenes etc. It was claimed that with a high degree of certainty, such as in 80% of those tested, reflexes were frequently measured before a disturbing image was seen. Do you know about this or where to find it?
Any search in academic indexes ought to pull it up, there've been more than one published paper on it. The newer research is cooler though. I recall hearing they had a problem with that visual research, in that it relied on psychology for reaction, and frankly, people react differently to things, not to mention that after you see several horrifying pictures, you're a bit numbed to them. The current research being done by Edwin May at the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory uses sound (or shock?--I think sound), and I could be wrong but I think they are basically deciding where they want to try and get the paper published, even as I type. The results are astounding and replicable (the latter part in particular being real novel for psi science ;-)). I'll ask Ed what the status is of this and get back to you. I think you can find a rather bare minimum of info about the current studies here: http://www.lfr.org/csl/new.html [Broken]

By the way if you visit the website, check out some of the example, the analysis info etc., it's a nice, simple overview of RV. May ran about 75% of the research under SRI-I/SAIC during the government study of RV, the group of projects now referred to under the conglomerate program name STAR GATE.

Regards,
PJ
 
Last edited by a moderator:
137
0
Ivan,

a weakness of our test.
The first posters have more choice but the posters after them have extra information knowing what it is not.
I think it's fair that everyone can post one per day max.
 
137
0
PJ,

In ESP/PSI testing the systematic scores above average are important but I believe also systematically below average. It that correct?

Dirk
 

Related Threads for: PF Remote Viewing Test: Object Revealed Any Winner? P. 7

Replies
27
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Sticky
21
Replies
521
Views
78K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Top