RVs urgently needed for study.

L

lost and blind

Guest
Hi all in the RV community. I desperately need your help. I am 4th year psychology student who has chosen to do a project on RV, but sadly cannot find any remote viewers participants. My project involves a series of RV participants having to decipher a series of 11 pictures which are contained in sealed envelopes. Originally I was hoping to have my sender participant being located in his home and the Remote Viewers being able to tune into him and note down, draw on comment and what these eleven pictures are. Having had some feedback from some interested parties, it seems this is/may not be pratical. I am willing for my sender participant to meet remote viewers to be in the same room as them and to conduct the study this way.

This has become quite urgent and I am hoping to have this study wrapped up by the end of January 2010. Can you please advise how this can be achieved. Many thanks in advance for your assistance and to Daz Smith for recommending me to the site.

I attach a copy of my original letter of invitation and consent form, which as already had ethical approval from my University( but will be subject to amendments)
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
I am more than happy to take part in this experiment; please PM me at marv.darley@gmail.com with more details.

Marv :)
 

Loraine

New Member
I'd like to see more details too (btw the 'attached' copies mentioned are not there)

With best intent
Loraine
insightremoteviewing@googlemail.com
 

LD

Member
Staff member
lost and blind said:
I am willing for my sender participant to meet remote viewers to be in the same room as them and to conduct the study this way.
Quick tip: Having anyone with any knowledge of the target(s) in the room with the remote viewer while the session is taking place is a big no-no. It opens the door for inadvertant physical information transfer or "cold reading." It would blow the double-blind protocol and all your data right along with it. ;)
 

Joe_Black

Member
I am back viewing again for a while now so if you want to task me email me at:

joe.remoteviewer '(adding this to stop spambots) at' gmail.com

I can work some targets before the end of the week, i am ok, not great but you should get some decent results.
 

Glenda

Member
I wouldn't mind helping out. Email me at quietly084@hotmail.com but I can't travel, the hubby and son still at home are helpless... Good luck with your class!
 
I volunteered to take part in this study. (I sent an email to the author's email address, which is listed underneath his online name.) So far, I have "viewed" three targets.

Be advised, unlike traditional RV studies or exercises, in this study the remote viewers are not receiving feedback after each individual session. The feedback will be given when the study is complete. I'm not particularly thrilled about this design, but I am continuing to participate. I am curious as to whether the lack of ongoing feedback will hurt my performance.
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
Be advised, unlike traditional RV studies or exercises, in this study the remote viewers are not receiving feedback after each individual session. The feedback will be given when the study is complete.
This is totally understandable. To go about it any other way would lead to a serious breach of protocol and an invalidation of the entire experiment.

Were the targets to be made known to each viewer as and when they had submitted sessions then any skeptic worth his salt would simply point out that any decent data provided was simply the result of individual viewers 'tipping off' each other about the nature of their tasks.

Bear in mind that the original Stargate viewers operated with an incredibly low rate of target feedback. This is something that any prospective viewer should simply get used to. Feedback is good and essential when one is practising, though in real world applications it may be scant, or, as in this case, delayed for weeks/months or even years.

Marv :)
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
Also SAIC (Ed May) studies using multiple rvers and attempts showed that feedback and the quality of feedback had no effect what so ever on the accuracy of the RV data. So even if you don't get feedback the data isn't affected by this.

At some point within usable rv you need to lose the need for feedback - it takes time but it comes.

All the best...

Daz
 

katzenhai2

Ambassador
Well daz, it has indeed! But that means the viewer views the feedback then, not the raw information.
I've seen it too many times here with several viewers. Though not with me. Maybe I trained myself not to rely on "feedback" but see all the information I get on a target only as reference material.
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
No youre missing what the report states and what I know - feedback in not a requirement for remote viewing to occur. At least as far as the remote viewer goes.

The data from SRI and SAIC showed repeatedly that the remote viewer viewed in real time.
That the quality and depth of the feedback material - di not make the quality and epth of the remoet viewing data any better.

the remote viewer didnt even need to ever have feedback for the data to be accurate.

SO the remote viewer doesn't remote view the feedback.

As I also stated in the past this is also not how nature works - nature normally takes the direct/simple route - remote viewing feedback is not the simple rout - the simplest route is - the remote viewer views the target.

All I can offer you is this - this was all done hunders if not thi=thousands of time using the best including Joe in a lab - your evidence towards viewing feedback is well lets say more anecdotal. Nos is this to say you cnat view your feedback - if this is the target then i guess you cna - but genrally if there is a target - then rv data does not come form feedback. if it did and the feedback was lets say a photo - then how would you account for your data of:
sounds, smells, textures, tastes and so on - these cant not come form a photo - they would have to be assumed from an analysis of the photo and not real data.

Daz
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
Funny; one of the main problems I face when having people unfamiliar to RV task me is trying to get across the fact that THE PHOTO IS NOT THE TARGET. There seems to be this misconception that our role as purported Remote Viewers is to describe the photograph, symbol, number etc etc in the envelope.

Trying to explain that the envelope/image set-up is actually only a TOOL designed to direct the viewer to the actual target can be a frustrating affair. Many times now I have had the 'but it's not in the photograph' accusation thrown at me when describing something that is most probably at the target site, just not visible on the picture used.

Marv :)
 

katzenhai2

Ambassador
daz said:
No youre missing what the report states and what I know - feedback in not a requirement for remote viewing to occur. At least as far as the remote viewer goes.
Maybe my post was not clear enough: I never said otherwise!

Feedback isn't a requirement.
But that does not mean the viewer never views feedback information! I've seen it too many times.
Depends on the viewers (unconscious) intention. This study can't deny the feedback-viewer-cyle if they use viewers not able to view feedback (whats with ARV then?). I suppose they use people like McMoneagle for such studies. Thats useless for most people - lacking experience and knowledge of these effects to occur.

As I also stated in the past this is also not how nature works - nature normally takes the direct/simple route - remote viewing feedback is not the simple rout - the simplest route is - the remote viewer views the target.
Thats your theory. Where is your study? ;D
I know someone viewing clearly and superior the feedback information. But not the "simple" direct target. Some of his results can compete with McMoneagle. But well its feedback information - not target information.

@Marv:
Maybe it has to do with the word "feedback". Use something like "reference material" and I think the usage of such is clearer.
 

RedCairo

do you ever dream you're someone else?
feedback in not a requirement for remote viewing to occur. At least as far as the remote viewer goes.
Psychic functioning is not dependent upon anything except a creature being psychic. Validating the accuracy of intentional psi in an appropriately blind situation requires some degree of feedback for comparison, although it's a big subjective world on what you need, how much, how specific, etc.

The data from SRI and SAIC showed repeatedly that the remote viewer viewed in real time.
If they intended to view in real time or 'defaulted' to it (psychology and paradigms matter). Remember there are occasions when they clearly weren't in the present (such as getting data that did not come to be in reality for many years). And present-time is mostly an artifact of lab-type targets anyway IMO; if you and Marv view the Titanic accident, you aren't viewing it in real-time because it doesn't exist in realtime, but it can still be viewed as well as anything else.

(Actually one point I find interesting is that I have never seen nor heard of any indication that the time-period of a target mattered to RV acquisition nor accuracy; with the caveat that much-removed contexts are likely to have greater translation difficulties for viewer and analysts.)

That the quality and depth of the feedback material - di not make the quality and epth of the remoet viewing data any better.
No, although the target pool bandwidth trials suggest that limiting that range increases the evaluation-accuracy (IMO this is not precisely the same thing as viewing accuracy, but is all that can be measured). Personally I would like to see the shannon entropy studies replicated with feedback to the viewers withheld, or using different feedback photos than those measured. Although Dr. May I'm sure has an explanation for this I have not yet grokked, IMO since the viewers got the feedback and the feedback was the same photo measured for the SE rating, I see no way to prove that the results were based on something "inherent to the target" -- vs. some effect upon the viewer after the fact. For that matter I'd like to see them replicated adding in some 'polar' (b&w high contrast) FB stuff too just out of curiosity. In any case, I agree that the 'quality and depth of feedback' does not "make" a session any more or less accurate, but then this could also be said for nearly every other variable we know of (which makes the point kind of moot).

The point of feedback is the internal education of the viewer, and the psychological adaptation of the viewer; in the lab it's for evaluation of accuracy; but I don't think anybody who views thinks that the acquisition/description of something is going to rest on the FB provided. Or maybe they do. I don't know anybody like that.

The remote viewer didnt even need to ever have feedback for the data to be accurate.

SO the remote viewer doesn't remote view the feedback.
You just made a gigantic leap of conclusion there which is not supported. You can fairly say, "On some occasions, the presence of feedback provided directly to the viewer was not a requisite to their accurate description." You cannot however say that no viewer picks up anything from feedback.

Actually I think "the universe" and everything that relates to the target, the task, the session, the tasker, the viewer, and probably a few other things, are all "potential" information for tapping into, more a large field of interconnected energy, than separate things in neat little boxes that one definitely does or doesn't have access to or whatever. What a viewer may actually fork out of themselves is anybody's guess but it does seem to depend on the viewer a great deal. Certainly viewers very often include feedback artifacts and inaccuracies in their data, so obviously people DO view feedback, however I don't think this is ever 100% any source at least provably. Some people are more visual than others for example and impactive photos might affect those viewers more than others. Unfortunately there is no way to "Make" a session be better/worse via feedback than via any other process point, so it kinda doesn't matter, except to the individual viewer I suppose.

As I also stated in the past this is also not how nature works - nature normally takes the direct/simple route - remote viewing feedback is not the simple rout - the simplest route is - the remote viewer views the target.
I think that is a belief system, and you might be correct, but the first half of your statement (that nature is simple/direct) does not IMO support the assumption that the "simplest" route is to the target. In fact if I were to guess myself I'd say the hands-on human experience 20 minutes later during feedback, is likely to be a lot more direct/simple route than what was going on in Nepal in 1928, regardless of the true un-nature of time/space; some people probably just relate better to their immediate future than they do someone else's rather foreign-to-them experience or environ. This might be affected by subconscious belief systems of the viewer of course. Anyway I don't have any opinion on it really either way, so I'm not suggesting a different answer, I'm only suggesting that I don't think there is an answer for that yet, although apparently some viewers develop their own beliefs about it over time.

time using the best including Joe in a lab - your evidence towards viewing feedback is well lets say more anecdotal. Nos is this to say you cnat view your feedback - if this is the target then i guess you cna - but genrally if there is a target - then rv data does not come form feedback. if it did and the feedback was lets say a photo - then how would you account for your data of:
sounds, smells, textures, tastes and so on - these cant not come form a photo - they would have to be assumed from an analysis of the photo and not real data.
The most bizarre part of this thread is that you seem to make this assumption that data comes either from BOX A or it comes from BOX B and if there is any sign it comes from B ever, or ever once did not come from A, then that solves it! It must be coming from B, and anything else must be wrong. :D That's just so funny. I would think if there is any lesson to psi it is that the universe is NOT separated like that; it's not sectioned and linear; more like one field of information. How the database query of our intent works, seems to depend on the individual, with some rough generalities, but even in the research I haven't seen any clear evidence that any person can/can't, or does/doesn't, get info solely from or never from a given source. I have seen papers from the early 80s I thought were rather poorly thought out which implied this, but they were a pretty big leap for conclusion; in later years with the benefit of experience I feel the thinking in the science area was more clear. Fwiw.
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
I too like these kind of discussions - they get me thinking.

I know someone viewing clearly and superior the feedback information. But not the "simple" direct target. Some of his results can compete with McMoneagle. But well its feedback information - not target information.
how do you know?
are you specifically targeting him to view feedback either by cue or intention?

if you and Marv view the Titanic accident, you aren't viewing it in real-time because it doesn't exist in realtime, but it can still be viewed as well as anything else.
The information on titanic exists in real time - I don't think we ever view the targets - just the information about the targets - i didnt actually taste the titanic like it said in my session - the data of this is just available non locally in thousands of different ways - no matter what time. Time as we think it exists. doesn't.

Although Dr. May I'm sure has an explanation for this I have not yet grokked, IMO since the viewers got the feedback and the feedback was the same photo measured for the SE rating, I see no way to prove that the results were based on something "inherent to the target"
Im sure If i remember correctly they showed differing levels of feedback or no feedback to the viewers.
And it wsnt just photos it was all kinds of feedback, text, photo, video...

In any case, I agree that the 'quality and depth of feedback' does not "make" a session any more or less accurate, but then this could also be said for nearly every other variable we know of (which makes the point kind of moot).
No because if we viewed the feedback then the rv data would have a pattern that followed the level of data in the feedback - but it doesn't. If we viewed feddback then feedback with video - rich in moving imagery and sensory daat then you would also expect the data to be richer - but its not.

You just made a gigantic leap of conclusion there which is not supported. You can fairly say, "On some occasions, the presence of feedback provided directly to the viewer was not a requisite to their accurate description." You cannot however say that no viewer picks up anything from feedback.
You cant say the viewer does. the argument of rv data nor being affected by the quality of feedback supports that the feedback isn't being viewed.

Also you cant get sound, smells, texture and other data like emotions from a photograph - if the feedback were a photo - and we view the photo then where does this data come form?

Certainly viewers very often include feedback artifacts and inaccuracies in their data, so obviously people DO view feedback
Wells I have to go by what the papers tell me - and they say no you don't view feedback :)
And this makes sense to em as nature doesn't take the longest route - its humans that make it complex.

I think that is a belief system, and you might be correct, but the first half of your statement (that nature is simple/direct) does not IMO support the assumption that the "simplest" route is to the target. In fact if I were to guess myself I'd say the hands-on human experience 20 minutes later during feedback, is likely to be a lot more direct/simple route than what was going on in Nepal in 1928
Only if you believe time and non locality to be an issue - some theories and its my belief that their is no time as we think of it. Allow yourself to believe for a moment that all information and energy is non local - then the data is actually already part of and inside you - not time to travel or places to go to get it - its instant access.

The most bizarre part of this thread is that you seem to make this assumption that data comes either from BOX A or it comes from BOX B
Not at all - all data is everywhere at all times. which is why there is no need to take a peek at the feedback :)

daz
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
ooh and i forgot - i really do enjoy these chats and thank you.

daz
 
Daz said:
As I also stated in the past this is also not how nature works - nature normally takes the direct/simple route - remote viewing feedback is not the simple rout - the simplest route is - the remote viewer views the target.
Daz, You've said this now three times in this thread, and, you say, elsewhere.

I am not sure what you mean by "nature normally takes the direct/simple route" - kindly lay it out.

Yes, a cat will go after a squirrel by "the direct/simple route" - which may not be a straight line, of course.

But "nature" clearly does not develop creatures "by a direct/simple route". Evolution does not proceed by a direct/simple route in the production of bodily organs. Some author likened nature to a tinkerer who has a lot of stuff in his backyard and takes what's to hand, as needed and as available. That seems an apt comparison.

Further, our brains do not give the appearance of being wired in a simple and direct way - as if, say, they had been designed by an optimum designer. Given the way nature has evolved us, it is most likely that our brains have not developed simple, direct processes, in the main. They are more likely to be convoluted, indirect. (From the reading in cognitive/brain science I have been doing, it seems that our thinking and perceiving processes are incredibly complex, with vast numbers of feedback loops at many levels, yet often very very quick too, as they had to be for our survival). Since our brains do coexist with our thoughts, I question that our thinking processes, including producing the RV data, run in the simplest grooves.

This is aside from the point that our minds may exist within or be connected to a greater Mind, which is beyond our "biomind" (which appears to be the case). We definitely use our (personal) biomind in doing an RV session - accessing/producing data while performing the mechanics of the protocol. It's speculation, but I think remote viewing probably operates within the limitations of our biological heritage. No one knows for sure - but one wonders how could it be otherwise. We still don't know how "simple"/complex, direct/indirect the RV processes are, and I for one wouldn't call on "nature" here, especially a supposedly "direct/simple" version of nature.

Enjoying the discussion, though...
Jon

P.S. Stanislas Dehaene's "Reading in the Brain" is a terrific book summing up and explaining a lot of recent cognitive neuroscience.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
A variety of different things here...

* If there is no time and there is no space, if it's all really energy=information/consciousness, how can one even in philosophy really separate feedback, beliefs, events, archetypes, and the allegedly physical and temporal thing of 'the target' anyway -- it's all energy, it's all one point (or zero-point): it's jungian stew.

The delineation of target vs. rest-of-the-universe is only (we assume and that IS an assumption) via "intent". The viewer's... the tasker's... the guardian angel's who knows -- but these 'seemingly separate' sources of information IMO are not separate, except to the degree the overall 'effort' of a viewing is capable of making them. And that varies by viewer and by session and frankly I don't think anybody knows for sure what matters most; intent, genetics, psychology, or many other possible factors we can't even comprehend.

* Back in the 70s there was all this concept about senders vs. receivers, and clairvoyance vs. clairaudience, and precognition vs. postcognition, but I think over time a larger comprehension has come around and the "concept of separation" has kind of blurred if not vanished those assumed boundaries. Things have no hard edged boundaries in my experience/observation.

* Interesting comments about the mind Jon.

daz wrote: I don't think we ever view the targets - just the information about the targets - i didnt actually taste the titanic...
I see this as supporting my point, and contradicting your own. If its all energy and, as you say, that 'information' is available from everywhere, then how can you insist that feedback which is only information (and integrally related to the target by nature of the tasking/viewing connection to begin with, and integrally related to the viewer for a few psychological and physiological reasons) is so separate from the target that nobody has elements of feedback/influence in their sessions? If you honestly think that nobody really views 'the targets' -- just info 'about' them -- then how can you possibly insist people don't view to varying %s the feedback -- which is, in fact, information about them? That doesn't make sense to me.

I've so often seen people getting or experienced getting 'feedback' data in sessions -- pretty clear elements of a picture on the back of their intended task, a brief letter/number series that was on the FB envelope, overwhelming influence/AOL in session of something that occurs in their life in the next few hours, or simply intense psi about some future event that has nothing to do with the target, but might be a full 3 seconds super dynamic clear visual of some unique thing they see on TV three hours later. Or, of course, 'artifacts' -- from a photo printer that prints with mild stripes, to a visual misunderstanding that is the first strong impression on feedback, and right there in the session, but turns out to be nonexistent except for that first moment of impression.

There aren't boundaries outside of focus/intent (that we know of), and in fact that's one of the things usually more obvious with new viewers is that 'anything psi' is more common in their sessions until (or unless) they structure their mind to not consider anything worth credit/self-applause unless it actually matches the darn target (no matter how otherwise interesting the info, or its clearly psi nature, might be). In general, "pulling the focus in and intensifying the intent" is usually what gets "credit" for good viewing (or perceived-as-improved viewing), but it's entirely possible that synchronicity and shifting psychology underlie the experience, more than a 'greater determination and focus'.

As for science and evidence, the problem is even the best funded, tightest science with the best viewers still requires statistics for big enough stats to call serious effect size, and the side-effect of this situation is that finding *anything* that quote-unquote "matters" to viewing as-measured, would require so much consistency, and such a big effect, in order to result in a measurable "significant" effect size (given the conditions of getting an effect size in the first place even in general), that it's not surprising not many things have demonstrated any provable improvement on viewing. Moreover but also important, I think for the sake of effect size issues in the lab, the viewers favored there are those with the most consistency, which a) is not always the best by other measure, and b) may often tend to favor the viewers who are the most 'independent' of external factors by personality than 'the average viewer' might be.

Lastly, c) just because a study did not find a statistically significant 'improvement in the accuracy of viewing' based on some criteria (eg. depth of feedback), does not mean that NO effect upon the viewing existed at all as a result of that varying protocol point; it simply means that an 'accuracy' effect -- and one so powerful that it showed up in big enough stats to matter -- wasn't found there. But assuming that lack of sufficient-effect-X that means that X never has any effect on anybody is a leap in conclusion. A person can be influenced in many ways (in life, without even needing to get into the subtle blackbox ineffable confusion of psi) that might not affect their clearly measurable skill at something related, though it may affect other aspects of their experience and/or performance. Plenty of guys play basketball differently when they know their girlfriend is watching, but that may not measurably improve their game, for example; it is likely however to change their experience of the game and hence some of their behavior in it, just by increase awareness of a certain kind.

Seeing the science and viewing and others' viewing has made me vastly less absolute about it all, not more. About the only thing I feel is certain at this point is that our own shadows and reflections so affect our results, both individually and in larger science, that finding a single thing we can say is absolutely true, beyond "the sun rose this morning," is pretty tough.

I think almost anything 'can or could' be true 'at least sometimes, at least for some people'. Psi could be intentional imaginative synchronicity instead of the more linear way we think about it. Inanimate/inorganic Targets may be as alive as anything else. Our psychological relationship with certain energies (which might even be 'reflected' in seemingly more woo-woo sounding ways, such as chakraic development) we aren't even consciously aware of, might impact what we can or do perceive or how well or badly. The list is endless.

You also mentioned, as I did, that certain things might depend on 'the belief systems of the viewer'. But that only underscores my point, really; that everything is a variable, that everything 'depends' -- and that consciousness (gads how I detest that wishy-washy-generic word!) of the viewer+ who-knows-what-else-if-anything, carves out of "infinity" what we call "information related to the target". It isn't any single path of experience or information, but a universe, a field as some put it, and there's no linear box boundaries; target "identity" is as variable and even arbitrary (if not much moreso) than human identity which is incredibly so. I see intentional-psi sessions as 'a composite of energy/information' that (in a perfect world) relates to an intended target, but I don't have any firm opinions on the source or arrangement, or the how, or they why... or really anything.

It's magic, cloaked in science, or maybe vice-versa. I know lots of labels I can stick on things but it's just nametags for someone I still don't know.

I do think that understanding (to some degree) one's data and self-in-data is important. To that end, I think that big paradigms that affect how people evaluate that, can be helpful or harmful or both to viewer psychology.
 
Top