The Ultimate Remote Viewing Experiment?

[Jeff Davis]

What utter nonsense, reality existed for billions of years before we had ears, and it most certaianly does exist apart from the human condition.

It existed long before we did, and would continue to exist long after we are all dust.

Conciousness is like the screen at the cinema, It is that which the movie is displayed on, it does not create the movie it presents it

You've made the mistake of thinking of SC as a real experiment, it isnt



It is more accurate to describe it as measuring the ignorance effect, the observer is ignorant of the cats actual state until he opens the box and looks in, but the cat is either one or the other it is not "both" thats a ridiculous premise

Not even schrodinger wanted to promote that as a serious proposition.
Schrödinger himself is rumored to have said, later in life, that he wished he had never met that cat.

As for being an expert in RV or any of the other silly questions youve posed in a desperate attempt to "not be wrong" i dont need to meet any of those conditions to prove



Is dead wrong

Ive posted links to target reference number generators on RV sites and videos showing viewers apparently doing a sucessful viewing using just a TRN and not precise geographical coordinates

The claim as absolute fact that you need precise coordinates, is proven false, it was so patently wrong i dont need to be an expert to prove it, the links and examples ive provided do that easily enough.

You were wrong, you dont need precise coordinates, get over it

What utter nonsense, reality existed for billions of years before we had ears, and it most certaianly does exist apart from the human condition.

It existed long before we did, and would continue to exist long after we are all dust.

Conciousness is like the screen at the cinema, It is that which the movie is displayed on, it does not create the movie it presents it

You've made the mistake of thinking of SC as a real experiment, it isnt



It is more accurate to describe it as measuring the ignorance effect, the observer is ignorant of the cats actual state until he opens the box and looks in, but the cat is either one or the other it is not "both" thats a ridiculous premise

Not even schrodinger wanted to promote that as a serious proposition.
Schrödinger himself is rumored to have said, later in life, that he wished he had never met that cat.

As for being an expert in RV or any of the other silly questions youve posed in a desperate attempt to "not be wrong" i dont need to meet any of those conditions to prove



Is dead wrong

Ive posted links to target reference number generators on RV sites and videos showing viewers apparently doing a sucessful viewing using just a TRN and not precise geographical coordinates

The claim as absolute fact that you need precise coordinates, is proven false, it was so patently wrong i dont need to be an expert to prove it, the links and examples ive provided do that easily enough.

You were wrong, you dont need precise coordinates, get over it

I have already clearly indicated that your video is by no means an authority on anything. Looking for information on the internet to bolster a specific position is what is bullshit and indeed an exemplification of mediocrity at best. Remote Viewing according to you is strictly the work of charlatans and yet you claim to proffer proof in evidence (of which your video is neither) of something that you don't claim to believe in to begin with. Do you possess the mathematical models developed by SRI associate scientists to support real non-local awareness, coordinate specific, remote viewing? Didn't think so. Yep, quite the expert you are. All your bullshit strawman "dead wrong" antics combined here couldn't levy one ounce of real sincere interest in SRI's past 40 plus years of research into the phenomenon of Remote Viewing. All you have is the false distrust colored fabric of your own doubt upon which you hope to feign a successful argument. Ignorance has no chance against the amassed knowledge base of SRI which was the scientific cradle of Remote Viewing. To think you would be ignorant enough to attempt levying the same against my character (strawman = "dead wrong") when I admitted I could be wrong IMMEDIATELY following the statement is proof of your short and emotional sightedness at this point. Even though in fact I was CORRECT. Who cares what various agencies claim. I simply wanted understanding here, which thus far in the context of this thread, Lori included, I don't seem to be able to get no, satisfaction, as old big lips once claimed.

BTW, no chance on Schrodinger's Cat, you are not even close. If you want a REAL understanding of the matter, I suggest starting here:

Whereas the experiment was one of thought, it has inspired tremendous amounts of progress in the realm of real quantum mechanics as well as theoretical quantum physics. The experiment may be many things, but one thing it is not, is a joke. Dude, where do you get this shit?

Once you understand what the factually uncertain nature of that which is contained in the sealed chamber represents, you'll at least be able to intelligently contribute on the matter.

 

[mike]

And your argument again in a desperate attempt "not to be wrong" is akin to saying since ether was once used to knock patients out prior to surgery, no surgery can be performed without ether.

I can link you to dozens of Youtube videos of remote viewers using TRN's to look at a target

That video is produced by PSI tech

PSI TECH was founded in 1989 by a 4 star General and a Military Intelligence officer who ushered a top secret information collection technology known as TRV (Technical Remote Viewing) out of the Pentagon and into the private sector.

TRV is a breakthrough mind technology that allows a trained operative to consistently obtain accurate intuitively derived information, on demand. It is a trained skill to acquire direct knowledge of things and events - targets - distant in time or space, while the viewer's conscious awareness remains totally "blind" to details about the target itself.

We are an International consulting group specializing in intelligence collection for individual, corporate, and government clients. In addition to the process of data acquisition conducted using the blind protocol system developed by researchers at Stanford Research Institute, PSI TECH employs skilled analysts who corroborate the data and compile it into actionable strategies for a variety of client problem solving and information needs.
This breakthrough technology allows you to find and collect information previously unobtainable, on any person, place, thing or event - anywhere and within any time-frame.

The breakthrough discovery made at Stanford was that accessing this vast data-bank of information was a trainable skill and by using specific rigid protocols information could be downloaded from the Matrix on demand. Highly trained "viewers" operate these protocols in the blind, meaning they have no pre-knowledge about the target. All they receive is a set of 8 numbers which are coordinated with the target.

the remote veiwer in that clip is

Joni Dourif, President and Director of Training at Technical Remote Viewing University (TRVU) is now offering “hands on” Remote Viewing training classes and seminars for people who desire a personalized setting to learn this life changing technology.In Joni’s personalized training classes, students are taught to proficiently apply the Technical Remote Viewing skills. Joni is a purist and does not deviate from the authentic Technical Remote Viewing techniques and proven protocols that were first developed by Ed Dames when in PSI TECH.

so i think we can reasonably conclude shes an "authority" on the subject.

Really jeff you are behaving like a child with its fingers in its ears shouting Nya Nya Nya to block out the information you know will show you to be dead wrong.

Is your delusion of being correct so comfortable you prefer it to the uncomfortable truth

Here it is again

all she gets is a random set of numbers , thats all she gets, she does not know what the target is

And ive posted this very same video here at the paracast years ago as an example of what to me looks like proof of concept for RV

So your claim

Remote Viewing according to you is strictly the work of charlatans

Yet you liked this post

Yes it is a fascinating subject and one i am not skeptical of.

Where i clearly state i am not skeptical , so either your memory is no good (as ive shown earlier with the conciousness / reality quotes) Or you are telling deliberate lies now to bolster your case

Either way the claim is as wrong as

To remote view anything you need precise coordinates. That's why I chuckle to myself when people bring up the missing plane and remote viewing. Makes no sense whatsoever.

A position you are still stamping your foot and insisting is correct

Even though in fact I was CORRECT. Who cares what various agencies claim

the claim

To remote view anything you need precise coordinates

IS dead wrong

All they receive is a set of 8 numbers which are coordinated with the target.

Home

all we do with the other three is we give them a controlled coordinate, incidentally the controlled coordinate is not the coordinate of the plane crash site because we don’t know where that is, it is nothing more than a control for the controller of the exercise to measure that all of the remote viewers are on the same sheet of music.

Remote Viewing - Defense Intelligence Agency Coordinate Remote Viewing Manual (CRV Manual) |

Hi, All,
To clarify on the question of actual coordinates, historically, the military believed coordinates (lat and long) were needed. Once targets started appearing for which no coordinates were possible, they realized coordinates were no longer necessary. Now, random coordinates are used -- usually chosen by the project manager, who utilizes various database fields to help him or her organize the material.

heres another video, with again 8 random numbers, not precise geographical coordinates

Unlike other organizations that offer online TRN generators, our generator tool guarantees that no two TRN sets generated will ever be alike! Each and every time you generate a TRN set, you can be ensured that you are obtaining a completely unique set from this webpage
Generating a set of TRNs is only one of the steps necessary for correctly setting up a Remote Viewing target. Be sure to assign the TRNs to a photo or a cue as taught in the Learn Remote Viewing DVD set.

Learn Remote Viewing


But of course all these sources are wrong and you are correct........

Even though in fact I was CORRECT. Who cares what various agencies claim

Once more for the dummy

Yes GCO's were used, but they are not necessary thus this

To remote view anything you need precise coordinates

Is indeed dead wrong

And if you stop and think about it for a moment that makes sense, after all what are geographic co-ordinates ? just a set of arbitrary numbers assigned by man, from orbit you dont see the lines on a map.

It thus makes perfect sense that RV would work using either random or structured number sets

You will clearly continue to stamp your foot and insist you are right, im satisfied ive made my case to the more rational of the audience here.

So this will be my last word, since you just keep making a fool of yourself the longer this goes on.

Its nothing personal, but clearly even when presented with credible facts to back my claim , you demonstrate a childish Nah ahh mentality.

 

[mike]

Whereas the experiment was one of thought, it has inspired tremendous amounts of progress in the realm of real quantum mechanics as well as theoretical quantum physics. The experiment may be many things, but one thing it is not, is a joke. Dude, where do you get this shit?

Once you understand what the factually uncertain nature of that which is contained in the sealed chamber represents, you'll at least be able to intelligently contribute on the matter.

Common sense tells us this is not the case, and Schrödinger used this to highlight the limits of the Copenhagen interpretation when applied to practical situations. The cat is actually either dead or alive, whether or not it has been observed.
“[It] prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality,” Schrödinger wrote. “

Schrödinger’s Cat explained - Telegraph


“[It] prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality,” Schrödinger wrote"

And yet youve done just that...........

You missed the point of the exercise

The experiment was designed to illustrate the flaws of the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of quantum mechanics

In 1935 Schrödinger published an essay describing the conceptual problems in QM

We know (at least most of us know) that the cat in the box is dead, alive or dying and not in a smeared out state between the alternatives

http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm-3.html

Next you'll be claiming Maxwells demon is a real demon......

I could go on to discuss quantum decoherance, specifically that von Neumann has not shown the assumption that the collapse occurs at the level of consciousness is equivalent to the assumption that it happens at any other earlier stage if one considers also other possible measurements that could be carried out along the von Neumann chain.

Indeed

Because it was impossible to find precisely at what point does something quantum devolve into a classical state, it was impossible to decide at what point of the measurement process actually sparks the "wave function collapse". Since it is assumed that a conscious observer is involved in the measurement process, it was theorized that perhaps it's the moment of being aware of a measurement that actually sparks the wave function collapse. It's kind of like arguing that life must begin at the exact moment where the egg becomes fertilized by the sperm, because it's too difficult to decide unambiguously where else it could "exactly have begun". John von Neumann was said to have proved this to be a fact, but his proof was later found to contain flaws.


Quantum decoherence asserts that in real life, "quarter wave filters" are not exactly ideal, but slightly imperfect, so that, over time, the quantum state function degrades to the point where it becomes classical, without any need for an observation to be made, or involving any consciousness in the process. In effect, it's the environment itself that eventually forces the "wave function collapse". Once it is understood how it is possible to conceptually and experimentally "bridge" the quantum and the classical states, quantum decoherence theories become easier to grasp, because it implies a degradation over time, something formerly thought to happen only "instantly".


But given your inability to accept RV does not specifically require precise geographical coordinates to work, i think such a conversation would be well beyond your capacity to engage in with any value

 

[Polterwurst]

What I've read about the history of remote viewing, they tried exact coordinates in the beginning but it turned out these weren't necessary. It seems that the RVers only needed something to get started, so they used random numbers.

As for the whole "consciousness emerges from vs. creates reality" thing, I do foster the thought that consciousness might indeed be kind of embedded in the fabric of the universe, like say gravity or light. Call me a crazy kooky creationist, I just like the thought. I guess it wouldn't explain much, though.

 

[mike]

Its connected to be sure, but a look at the timeline shows nature creates us, not the other way around

 

[Randall]

Its connected to be sure, but a look at the timeline shows nature creates us, not the other way around

Some heated debating going on there. You are of course, completely correct that human consciousness does not generate the objective reality that we subjectively experience, and you are 100% correct in pointing out that the proof for this lies in the logic that science has determined with virtual certainty that the universe has been around far longer than humans, or for that matter the planet Earth itself. The subjective idealists must therefore stretch beyond all reasonable limits in order to prop up their position.

However it's not unreasonable to think of ourselves as a part of nature and concurrently as beings who have learned to manipulate nature. So to a certain extent nature created humans and because humans also create things, are humans not creating nature as well? From an alien point of view, our cities and material constructs, the things we don't consider to be part of nature, might be seen by aliens as just another part of the natural order that we as an indigenous species create.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Anyone truly interested in this "new school" remote viewing would do quite well to familiarize themselves with a the following critical information. There can be no question whatsoever, that *thee* world authority and most trusted source concerning the act of remote viewing research and development is Russell Targ. Period. Please note how Targ does not agree with any changes to the original remote viewing protocol that he and his team developed and demonstrated successfully, and even continue to do so right to this day. You will also learn of some extremely key reasons why remote viewing was dumbed and played down intentionally by SRI during the 70s and 80s. Quite interesting, and factual, most importantly. Unlike many posts in this thread.

Remote Viewing, Reality, and the Human Condition: Reflections on a Weekend with Russell Targ | ?!

 

[Chuck Slick]

Jeez-O-Peets... I thought this was a simple topic which would have lots of informative discussion. Instead its become a nearly shouting match. Calm down guys and preform a RV session of your liking. Like Da Da did.



Check it out at... Triumph of a Man Called Da-Da

Its fun and gets the kids involved!

 

[boomerang]

Think about this a minute. Promoters of proprietary remote viewing, most of them alumni of whatever shadowy program our government ran, claim they successfully developed a virtually revolutionary set of "protocols" allowing them (albeit with limited success) to see things at a distance without special tools, using abilities residing in their own minds.

So--are we to believe that during the tens of thousands of years of human history such "protocols" would not have been discovered and harnessed already? This makes no sense. Whether information is spatially non-local, or the ability to remote view on the part of someone at a given time has taken place or not, is almost a separate topic.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Think about this a minute. Promoters of proprietary remote viewing, most of them alumni of whatever shadowy program our government ran, claim they successfully developed a virtually revolutionary set of "protocols" allowing them (albeit with limited success) to see things at a distance without special tools, using abilities residing in their own minds.

So--are we to believe that during the tens of thousands of years of human history such "protocols" would not have been discovered and harnessed already? This makes no sense. Whether information is spatially non-local, or the ability to remote view on the part of someone at a given time has taken place or not, is almost a separate topic.

Boomerang,
There is the need for a very critical distinction here. "Remote Viewing" is a term specific to our relevant time frame. Mystics, sages, priests, adepts, learned, whatever, have been doing this for thousands of years within occult schools of practice according to written documented history. How can access to, partial limited non-local awareness, be offered up like a tried and proved tea catering service when science as we know it does not even "remotely" understand the formative process apart from statistical correlations? This is not a "product", like a weapon, nor an award of substance, or quantity, to be tried and proved by the limitations of materially bound perspective, or measurements. Imagine humanity becoming humanity over literally millions of years. Our best perspectives scientifically, with respect to what is our best present scientific understanding concerning the mystical workings of the human consciousness experience, are like grains of sand on the perspective beach of evolutionary development. A shovel full in a child's hand at best. It is progressively logical that we are merely in the ever ongoing transitional evolutionary stages of acquiring, and pre acclimating to, an extended environmental aptitude.

What I want to know is why does this seem so unreasonable considering we all came from a freaking fish initially?

 

[boomerang]

Boomerang,
There is the need for a very critical distinction here. "Remote Viewing" is a term specific to our relevant time frame. Mystics, sages, priests, adepts, learned, whatever, have been doing this for thousands of years within occult schools of practice according to written documented history.

Indeed, impressive documentation of personal apprehension of non-local information seems as old as humanity itself. But it also seems that when anyone, individually or collectively, claims to possess any degree of consistent control and utilization of such phenomena, things go awry and they are left (publicly anyway) empty handed. It's another way of saying that the phenomenon is always in control of those with whom it interacts, rather than other way around. This is why I remain skeptical regarding claims of refined and useful protocols. Especially as something new and unique. Like the old saying: "Sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't."

 

[SRL+]

I’d really like to know how deep intuition works. Not the type of intuition Jung describes as the introverted intuitive, rather the intuition of a mother who instantaneously knows that a son or daughter has been seriously injured or killed. As this phenomenon is entirely different from instinct, and is undeniably real. How could this phenomenon possibly be explained from the materialist perspective, and not involve consciousness?

 

[Jeff Davis]

Indeed, impressive documentation of personal apprehension of non-local information seems as old as humanity itself. But it also seems that when anyone, individually or collectively, claims to possess any degree of consistent control and utilization of such phenomena, things go awry and they are left (publicly anyway) empty handed. It's another way of saying that the phenomenon is always in control of those with whom it interacts, rather than other way around. This is why I remain skeptical regarding claims of refined and useful protocols. Especially as something new and unique. Like the old saying: "Sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't."

Certainly not in defense of RV specifically, but isn't our relationship to and with consciousness, via our best present scientifically verifiable understandings, no different than "magic"? It's an imagining that cannot be replicated, nor explained, and yet we sentiently participate within the framework of it's best determinations, constantly.

You stated it best B, when you made the "grasping for smoke" analogy not too long ago. Deep down inside, we all know that there is "something" very real, and truly, that "something", is outside or beyond the scope of anything previously imagined and demonstrated in the realm of scientific understanding. And it's always been right there since the dawn of sentient humanity. Right between our magic little ears.

If you get a chance, read this book. It's no let down I promise. About the Book | First Sight

It's fascinating to note that in both the adept mystical approach, as well as the ardently scientific practice, each discipline demonstrates that it's more about what we don't do, than it is what we willfully choose to do. There seems to be very little arbitration in the realms of either the scientific process, or the mystical revelation. It truly makes sense because the essence of what are basic willful desires, choices, both contemplatively arbitrary, as well as that which would be deemed subjective beyond reason, are what are shown to be progressive antitheses in relation to either's measurable output. The old and learned among us, possibly with a long tooth or two, commonly refer to such complex cognitive undergoing's by other less far reaching names. Namely, bullshit in, bullshit out.

 

[boomerang]

JD, thanks for the book suggestion. Always looking for a good read.

 

[Polterwurst]

That's what Russell Targ was doing using associative remote viewing in the early 1980's. It's extremely difficult to do it directly, so objects are associated with different market states (e.g. up a lot, down a lot, up a little, down a little).

Seems that someone repeated the experiment with some success AND published the results:
http://psiphen.colorado.edu/Pubs/Smith14.pdf

I'm probably a bit late with this news item, but maybe someone else missed it. Here's the Daily Grail article:
Researchers Use ESP to Make Thousands of Dollars on the Stock Market | The Daily Grail

Makes you wonder how many people done that and kept really quiet about it. Well, at least, makes me wonder.

So--are we to believe that during the tens of thousands of years of human history such "protocols" would not have been discovered and harnessed already? This makes no sense. Whether information is spatially non-local, or the ability to remote view on the part of someone at a given time has taken place or not, is almost a separate topic.

If you consider "Remote Viewing" to be just a modern version of Scrying or Clairvoyance, it seems that it actually has been with us throughout history. Wether you meditate on a random number or stare into a crystal ball to put yourself in a state of self-hypnosis is just a matter of taste, I guess. I think the important thing here is to see that it's far from being a sure bet and leads to many more failures than it does to all-out successes (and probably quite a few positive but not really significant results), which is why it's never been acknowledged.

As self-proclaimed "prophets", "clairvoyants" and "psychics" have proven over and over again, the information gained is probably much more often just the unconscious mind running wild and producing pure fantasy than real outside information, but to my mind, there is no doubt that there's a signal. It just seems really hard to separate it from the noise.

Unfortunately, totally self-convinced but not very talented people like the late Mrs Browne or Ed Dames and of course, full-blown frauds and charlatans still make serious study virtually impossible.

That's true, and the remote viewers have discussed that possibility at length. What would a lawsuit against a remote viewer look like? But… I just don't want to be the remote viewer who finds out.

It's not lawsuits against RVers (yet), but we do have a history of "clairvoyant trials" here in Germany. Nowadays there is no publicity involved, mostly disappointed clients trying to get their money back, ending in court settlements. But in the 1920s and 30s there were a few prominent trials (most famously the Hanussen one), all of which ended with the alleged psychics being acquitted. In every case there seems to have been "demonstrations" which the prosecution couldn't prove to be fraud and which seems to have made some impression on members of the court.