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.
