If RVing numbers is so tough, why do we use them for tasking ID???


Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
I also agree with your comments.
Numbers can be rv'd. Somewhere on this forum are results of lotto examples I tried where I was starting to get numbers within rv - it can be done - although like all things within Rv I don't believe its possible to wholly and only train to do one thing; like numbers of just ARV, or just... The process, mind of whatever is involved in Rv gets bored very quickly - and once repetition comes in and interest moves out, then RV results decline.

Over time yes its achievable, the same with words. there are other ways though like associating numbers with things and words with symbols.

I agree number are ideal for target cues for admin purposes - just wanted to make it clear for newbies that they have no influence on the rv session, accuracy or are even a needed component. Dom you should see the 12 month study we did with Courtney Brown - where each month we remote viewed a month before a target was created by an 'event' then another month till it was chosen as the target by a random process - yet still we managed to achieve some level of accuracy. So when we did the remote viewing there was no target - not until weeks later.

All the best...

Abstract_1dea said:
What I am proposing to do is to recognize the number as a thing with definite, consistent attributes that you can pick out of a range of targets in order to determine the number directly. That to me is why five is harder than one or two as one and two are more known to me than five is and I would have to work on determining the aspects of five that are important instead of assigning them traits that may or may not apply.
A number of mathematicians have felt that numbers have unique characteristics, personalities almost, not just synaesthetes like Daniel Tammet. Some mathematicians believe that numbers are "simply" human constructs - Stanislaus Dehaene, for example. Others think there is more to it than that, e.g. Roger Penrose, a prominent mathematician (and theoretical physicist). Penrose discusses the subject in his modest little book, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. He thinks numbers have some kind of existence beyond what Dehaene does, maybe quasi-Platonic. He doesn't try to pin it down. His view resonates more with me than Dehaene's.

For some remote viewers it may be possible to do what you are considering with numbers. I for one don't think that all (trained) viewers have the same propensities, strengths and weaknesses. Since after all these years, we lack even a basic typology of viewers, we won't know unless some of us explore it.

Dehaene (in The Number Sense) discusses the idea of subitization. That is, the number of things we can grasp instantly, without counting. Psychological experiments show that we can grasp 1, 2, 3, 4 items/objects without counting. Some animals can as well. Dehaene speculates on how this ability was developed over the course of evolution – why 3 or 4 is the limit is not known. I have wondered if this is something we could utilize in ARV/RV but have not tested it (that I can recall). I like your ideas about exploring the qualities or “meanings” of numbers as numbers (not as descriptors). As I say, this may be meaningful and useful for some viewers, whether obtained via self-training, under hypnosis, or through some other modality.

I am thinking some practice to see what my sub thinks is important about the numbers and document it so that when I see them again, I'll understand. Kinda like what RV does in the first place. Setting up a language and a dialog with the subconscious in order to understand what is perceives and interpret those perceptions in a useful way Does that make any sense to you?
Yes – definitely worth exploring.

If numbers are perceived only as an attribute of something else, then this whole path will be ignored and never pursued.

No assumptions, not even this one, need go unchallenged.
I couldn’t agree more. We are still at the beginning of understanding and using RV.



Active Member
Well researched Jon, I didn't know know such a thorough study of the resonance of numbers had been undertaken. So much of what we are learning today was just forgotten knowledge.

Thanks for the post, you do have the understanding that some psychics may have sensitivity to numbers where others do not.



New Member
Benton said:
I also read another research paper that showed that when looking in on brains with fMRI devices, the same pattern of activity occurs when a person is remembering and when they are imagining their future. In both cases, the scenery and experiential data has to be pulled off the shelf for use, since memories and fantasies of the future both are taking place in a virtual world, made up of the neural info we have written on our brain-matter (maybe).
Snag with current mri tech is that it cannot accurately measure at the cellular level. It's still not precise enough. It will happen, but will need some serious computing power just to record and process such volumes of data, let alone the tiny tiny inducatance couplings smaller than a neuron.


New Member
Don said:
You may be correct, the idea that scents impact the most primitive part of the brain could very well be an "unscientifically verified observation" (I believe that was how you put it). I simply mentioned it because I recalled reading that somewhere some time ago. By "most primitive part of the brain", I believe they were referring to the complexes of the brain nearest the brain stem (or maybe part of the brain stem) - which is what they called the "most primitive part".

I was just mentioning something I'd read somewhere, not stating it as fact. I really don't know if it's true or not.
Reason I was suspicous - we dont' have great knowledge of primitive brains. Soft tissues like brains are rarely fossilised, and fossils themselves only form under favourable conditions.

If computing simulations are ever able to model lifeforms just from dNA, then we might get the right answers.
Thanks, Mycroft.

After watching the video of Daniel Tammet reciting the digits in pi for 5 hours using his shapes, I figured that was probably the world record. It's not - he's "only" sixth!

The third ranked person explains his method below:

Interview with Hideaki Tomoyori
(September 1988, NHK Radio Japan, with kind permission)

"Of course, I couldn't manage to memorize such a huge, irrational number simply by rote. Instead, I've broken it down into short sequences of just ten numbers at a time. And then I associate the sound of each number with a particular word. With the words made in sentences, I can remember particular images. So, for each group of ten numbers, I think first of a single key word, then that key word reminds me of an image and a sentence, and then the sounds in that sentence remind me of the exact sequence of numbers.

"For example, the number sequence three-nine in Japanese is pronounced san-kyu, and that sounds very like the word sa-kyu, which mens "sand dune". If I picture a sand dune, I easily remember the numbers three and nine. And if I add in other elements, like my wife standing in front of the sand dune by the bright sea, then those words in Japanese can remind me of a whole string of ten numbers."

He uses a modification of the ancient method of associating images with other things in order to remember the latter. E.g. the method of imagining yourself walking around the rooms in your house and associating names or ideas with the objects in each room as you revisit them mentally in sequence. You already have a memory of those objects; you build on that existing memory.

The top-ranked person uses the particularities of the Chinese language as part of his method, but doesn't give details. He says he memorized 100,000 but made a mistake at digit 67,891 (!).

BTW, Dehaene says something along the lines of: the Chinese system for numbers enables them to mentally calculate faster than those who use English or French.

Maybe there are some useful ideas in this regarding RVing numbers, whether directly as numbers or via associations.



New Member
Wow! Jon.

Thanks for the info.

That's going to keep me busy for a while.

I have always wondered if anybody else considered numbers the same way.


Staff member
I'm a bit late to this thread (...) but anybody can get around the concern re: tasking numbers by simply not using numbers.

To be more specific we should call this a "cue". The 'tasking intent' may be a written string (from a single word to a paragraph) and that is something different. The 'cue' is what is given to the viewer up front.

Even when I use something online to task me, I usually do the session ahead of time, and my tasking is, "describe the target that is the focus of the feedback I will get for THIS session."

Then it doesn't matter where or when or how I get it. The session is itself a self-fulfilling prophecy you might say.

It might be more helpful to be more specific but after an initial period of "adaptation" to changes in tasking format, I never found that one to be any less useful than any other.

You can also, if someone is helping task you, ask them to put the tasking intent and feedback into an envelope or box and when you later go to get it, just task yourself on the target intended by the tasking in that box right now.

I'm sure you get the idea. You could use a color or alphabet chars or symbols or "Go!" or anything else as your tasking. Randomized numbers are used simply because they are assumed to not provide any additional information to the viewer.

Some taskers just use the database or record #.

In my lab books, I use a task# that is the lab book number, then the target number, then the session number. So 11.23.3 would be book 11, target #23 in that book, session 3 on that target.

I don't care what other people's task numbers are that they give me; I record them only for the cross-reference documentation. I only care what the tasker's intent is, and what my own evaluation of the intent is upon target disclosure.