+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

  1. Link to Post #1
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,225
    Thanks
    11,998
    Thanked 29,752 times in 4,831 posts

    Default The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    This (multiple) post is an offshoot of the Courtney Brown February/March announcement thread, and offers a tentative (tentative) critical examination of the principle behind remote viewing. While the main thread is mostly operating on the basis that remote viewing (RV) is for real, that hypothesis may be true or false, or possibly falsely true… – but it needs appraisal. I am assuming a working knowledge of the basic concepts and procedures, which anyone following the other thread surely needs to have, because whatever the forthcoming announcement, there is definitely going to be an RV component that needs to be grasped. This is my own level: I have read quite a bit on RV, but I’m by no means an expert. Hence this approach to a theoretical analysis is open for discussion, development and improvement. It does not necessarily correspond to any personal opinion that I may have formed at this stage (I haven’t), so please make sure that any discussion is not in terms of conflicting viewpoints. Conflicting viewpoints are precisely not what RV is about. I would suggest it is about convergence. The question is: what converges with what?

    When trying to understand what is going on with remote viewing, the hardest part is possibly grasping the role of the numbers that are typed into an email message as target coordinates (2 four-digit numbers). The actual figures are not normal grid references that can be looked up on a map to position the target; they are perfectly random, and no more meaningful than the number given to a prisoner in a concentration camp. That is the whole point and is what makes the experiment blind and hence more scientific. It is also what makes the operation seem somehow magical. And this may be where any sleight of hand, whether accidental or deliberate, is being done, because one wonders why bother naming a target at all? It goes counter to the very purpose of naming, which is generally to identify things and people. It also goes counter to the purpose of aiming, which is generally to plot a course to an identified target.

    The situation can schematized as follows. There is a target and the input of two clearly separated agents, the remote viewer and the task setter, or tasker. The tasker designates the target; the viewer identifies the target – two separate paths that only meet at the target itself. I am deliberately leaving to one side the subsequent judging process, which has problems of its own, and restricting my analysis to the RV process per se, from issuing a task, whatever it may be, to the viewers’ submission of hard copy, whatever that may be.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	semiotic triangle remote view1.jpg
Views:	275
Size:	14.4 KB
ID:	25109

    .../…


  2. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    carryattune (6th March 2014), chocolate (5th March 2014), Curt (7th March 2014), Elainie (5th March 2014), giovonni (5th March 2014), Inaiá (6th March 2014), Johnny (5th March 2014), kfm27917 (27th February 2020), mahalall (6th March 2014), Roisin (5th March 2014), Rollo (5th March 2014), RunningDeer (17th March 2014), Shezbeth (5th March 2014), Wind (5th March 2014)

  3. Link to Post #2
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,225
    Thanks
    11,998
    Thanked 29,752 times in 4,831 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    A possible tool for understanding what is going on here is what is known as the semiotic triangle. Semiotics is the science of signs, and the semiotic triangle, or triangle of reference, shows in diagrammatic form the relationship between a sign and the real life object it designates (known technically as the signifier and the signified, or symbol and referent).

    Click image for larger version

Name:	semiotic triangle.jpg
Views:	3809
Size:	22.8 KB
ID:	25110

    Here you have the sign (e.g. spoken or written word) which designates the real-life object, but not directly (hence the broken line). The sign is arbitrary: as Shakespeare says, 'That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet'. So, in the example given in the diagram, the word or sound ‘Tiddles’ only relates to one particular feline through a convention: the naming of the cat. The name is arbitrary, for another name (Pussy), a dog’s name (Fido), or a man’s name (Prince Charles) are just some of the possible alternatives. (Similarly, we say ‘cat’ when others say ‘chat’, ‘gato’ or ‘Katz’.) The sign-object relationship is indirect, via the concept. We go from the sign to the concept through perception: we see/hear the sign to reach the concept. The concept relates to the object through the experience we have of it, which can vary from none at all to a great deal. If you know there is a cat named Tiddles, or if you recognize that as a cat name, you will immediately think cat in general; if you know the cat in question you will visualize its individual features. Or if it is called Fido, you may mistakenly think dog, and not know until you see it, experience it, that it is actually a cat. Similarly you cannot conceive who or what 12345678 is or looks like till the first time you see/experience him/it in some shape or form.

    Hence the concept becomes richer and more specific through experience of the object, and the sign becomes richer and more specific through its relationship with the concept informing it indirectly about the object, even though the direct relationship of designation remains a simple one of arbitrary labelling.

    This whole triangular process has to be seen as indefinitely recurring. Hence signs are built up into a system (a language) in which they interact and gain meaning from each other while losing something of their inherent arbitrariness. Think, for example, of the pig farmer who said, ‘Rightly be they called pigs!’ This is not so much a tautology as a circular argument. Pigs are what they are; the word is applied to people; the human connotation falls back on the pigs. There may be a little circularity going on when remote viewers but only ‘military grade’ practitioners are set an indecipherable task and score full marks.

    Smaller segments than words can also lose their arbitrariness. For instance, the letter (sound) ‘j’ beginning a word, although seemingly meaningless, tends far more often than it should to designate some kind of sharp, direct action – as in jab, jangle, jam, jar, jeer, jerk, jiggle, jilt, jive, jolt, jump etc.

    A similar process goes on at the conceptual level: thinking involves the confrontation of several concepts and can lead to new, often more complex, concepts. And the same thing happens of course at the real-life level: the cat will do catlike things (fight cats and dogs, have kittens, eat mice, say little), but may learn a few uncatlike tricks (be friendly with cats and dogs, take a contraceptive, eat roast chicken and even vegetables, talk to humans).

    Thus we have an abstract mental operation that involves interaction with concrete reality on the one hand, and with signs, on the other, which combine a concrete aspect (letters, sounds…) and an abstract component (meaning). This ‘abstract mental operation’ is itself a combination of the material (mental meaning brain activity) and the immaterial (abstract meaning non-physical).
    Transposing: remote viewing is an abstract mental operation that involves interaction with what exactly? on the one hand, and with signs, on the other, which possess a concrete aspect (digits) but no? abstract component (meaning).

    .../…


  4. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    carryattune (6th March 2014), chocolate (5th March 2014), Curt (7th March 2014), Inaiá (6th March 2014), Johnny (5th March 2014), Roisin (5th March 2014), Selene (6th March 2014), Shezbeth (5th March 2014), sunflower (5th March 2014), Wind (5th March 2014)

  5. Link to Post #3
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,225
    Thanks
    11,998
    Thanked 29,752 times in 4,831 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    Now let’s apply the semiotic triangle to the remote viewing experience.

    The above definition contains two questions (in bold):

    Quote remote viewing is an abstract mental operation that involves interaction with what exactly? on the one hand, and with signs, on the other, which possess a concrete aspect (digits) but no? abstract component (meaning).
    What exactly does the RVer perceive (the target)? And are the task coordinates totally meaningless? These are not rhetorical questions. The answers we have to date are not proven. We are told that the perception of the target is somehow adequate or true to that target. But how exactly? – do we know that? Are there not perhaps degrees of adequacy (one suspects there must be)? And we are told that the task coordinates are meaningless, if not totally, then as near as dammit. That at any rate is the intention; whether this is actually the case needs checking.


    Click image for larger version

Name:	semiotic triangle remote view.jpg
Views:	855
Size:	20.6 KB
ID:	25111

    1. Target coordinates (sign). The relationship between the random coordinates and the target itself, as the sign to the object (signifier to signified), becomes an established convention when more than one remote viewer views the same object using the same coordinates. This is the origin of meaning: a meaningless sign becomes meaningful when stably associated with say a real-life object. Just how stable in this instance is a moot point. The implication is that multiple remote viewers will all agree, i.e. establish and subscribe to the ‘convention’, thereby entering a unit of vocabulary into the language. On the other hand, the use of a random number generator suggests just the opposite: an incidental, meaningless, disposable label. This discrepancy is important, because it might make the general consensus somehow suspect instead of being corroborative.

    This leads to an interesting possible experiment, which would involve assigning old coordinates to a fresh target. Theoretically this could happen randomly. The coordinates are a pair of 4-digit numbers. There is a 9999 to 1 chance of you and I sharing the same pin number, so the chances of sharing two such would be in the order of 100 million to 1. Hence in real life, there must be a few people sharing two pin numbers with someone else. The question is: in such an event, would the RVers find the new target, or would they return to their old friend 1234 5678? Either they find the new target, and the sign vocabulary is unstable – if this were ordinary language, it would be an instance of creating a homonymy (one sign with two unrelated meanings). Or they find the old target, and the vocabulary is relatively stable, i.e. less random and more like ordinary language.

    This would be an interesting experiment to perform because it has no expected result, and we would learn something by discovering what actually happens. By way of contrast, I shall return later to one experiment that has been carried out, where I feel there was an expected outcome, which did in fact materialize, and from which I learned nothing.

    The fact that the tasker setting the target is someone as totally independent as possible of the entire RV procedure reinforces the arbitrariness of this relationship. The selection of targets by computer, intended to add to this distancing effect, also adds a different kind of arbitrariness. This selection decides when a target will be tasked, but not the actual targets, at least not always. (Setting a target may not be necessary for RV in general, but it is necessary for this scientific experiment, for purposes both of checking accuracy and analyzing the process. I am leaving to one side other aspects of protocol such as using pairs of targets.)

    A computer can set easy and basically uninteresting targets like the Eiffel Tower. But for others, objects of interest, there must be someone – if not the tasker himself then a ‘taskmaster’ even further in the background – who has at least some idea of its nature, for they would not be objects of interest without an interested party. Now, what constitute areas of interest and what do not is a very subjective issue that no computer worth its salt would touch with a bargepole. This is where the human element, having walked out the front door, slips in the back door. Not only are certain targets set by humans, but we can even somewhat categorize the type of humans in question.

    Hence tasking certain asteroids with reference to their origin may sound neutral as to that origin – chosen in order to decide between the conventional gradualist theory (whereby the asteroid belt was formed directly from the primeval dust cloud) and the catastrophist hypothesis of astronomer Tom van Flandern (whereby the asteroid belt was formed much more recently with debris from an exploding planet). But it is not at all neutral with respect to mainstream science, since it is already according far too much credence to van Flandern’s supposedly crazy idea. Mainstream science is not interested in the answer simply because it is not interested in the question. There is nonetheless, however discreet he tries to be, an interested observer who is unwillingly and unwittingly influencing the outcome of the experiment. Asking this question at all is almost tantamount to expecting the alternative theory to be validated.

    In other words, the target name/number is a synonym for an existing sign or set of signs for which the tasker has already at least to some degree taken the indirect route through the concept to the thing itself. This is made clear in the above example. In his video at farsight.org, Courtney Brown gives us the lowdown on Tom van Flandern, so as to explain the whole point of targeting 3 otherwise uninteresting asteroids. That is a lot of baggage for a randomly generated number to be carrying around – ‘baggage’ being a neutral term for which ‘hidden agenda’ might sometimes be an appropriate more critical alternative, although, I hasten to add, I am not suggesting any such thing in the case of the Farsight Institute.

    Of course the arbitrariness of the sign is a debatable concept anyway, having been subverted in the legitimate ways mentioned above, as well as corrupted in other more nefarious ways, including double-speak, such as would indeed indicate a ‘hidden agenda’. Is war any less violent for being called peace? Does the devil incarnate smell as sulphurous when called Lucifer, the bringer of light? Try telling a concentration camp survivor that a number instead of a name was not dehumanizing. Or for that matter, try telling a Satanist that the number 666 is an arbitrary sign.

    .../…


  6. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    carryattune (6th March 2014), chocolate (5th March 2014), Curt (7th March 2014), Johnny (5th March 2014), Shezbeth (5th March 2014), sunflower (5th March 2014), Wind (5th March 2014)

  7. Link to Post #4
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,225
    Thanks
    11,998
    Thanked 29,752 times in 4,831 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    2. Remote view (concept). The concept, as we saw earlier, is what links the sign indirectly to the real-life object. It relates to the sign by perceiving (reading and interpreting) it, and to the object by somehow experiencing it – normally through the 5 senses. In other words, mentation here has an input (a verbal stimulus), producing an output (a conception phase), leading to a second input (a real-world experience). This process is then somewhat reversed: the real-world experience acts as an input (a sensory stimulus), producing an output (a conception phase), leading to another output (in RV: hard copy drawings/notes), leading back to the original input (i.e. describing the target/completing the task).

    This at least is the physical account of how the brain functions. What the brain cannot do, and which something therefore non-physical is accomplishing, has nothing to do with the target. We know that the brain can readily visualize things that are not there, through memory or imagination or technological devices like ‘television’ – as in ‘tele-‘ = remote, ‘vision’ = viewing.

    The non-physical accomplishment lies in knowing the meaning of the unintelligible task coordinates, knowing what they denote. In this respect, the line on the left side of the triangle between the task and the concept should also be a broken line; or rather, there should be an incoming broken line and an outgoing continuous line, because the process here involves receiving something inconceivable and sending back a conception of it. But there again, that continuous line is really a broken one too, given that this conception is erroneous (not in its perception of the object per se, but as to the nature of that object and the nature of that perception). This is the error that lends objectivity to what may in fact be a subjective perception: we have no physical way of knowing that the object being viewed is the real target as opposed to some vivid idea or representation of it. We can ‘know’ it in a non-physical way, but we can only share that knowing with someone with ‘military grade’ skills in that area.

    While the task coordinates ‘name’ the target, for the RVer they ‘locate’ the target, they supply a spacetime address – an instruction where to look and what to look at. But, just as the name is less arbitrary than it seems, the address is less random than is claimed. Hence, if you extended the use of computers to the entire operation, you would be sending a computer to a computer-generated and transmitted random address, and the computer would then crash or otherwise malfunction, because it cannot second-guess the tasker’s intention; it will literally go to the designated address, and only then if correctly formatted – it has to be a real address in a language the computer understands, as opposed to indecipherable pseudo-code. I said ‘the tasker’s intention’: the tasker claims not to have an intention, but of course he does. It is what guides the remote viewer, for otherwise, the RVer would be no better off than the computer. This is why the SRV (scientific RV) protocol sets so much store by the viewer’s mind being as uncluttered as possible: in order to receive the address from outside.

    Something is happening here akin to suddenly understanding a foreign language, or very nearly bypassing language altogether, in other words a form of telepathy, seen as the transfer of an energy pattern between a transmitter and a receiver. Telepathy requires a source, and we have observed how there is basically a source hiding, however discreetly, behind the task coordinates. The experimental protocol requires there to be ideally no (human) source; it would be a mistake to claim that such an ideal can ever be fully attained in obtaining data of interest to humans. This might happen if we stepped out of SRV and there were no coordinates at all and ultimately no target. On the contrary, the more precise the task naming becomes, the more uncluttered is the mind behind the task. Ultimately, this mind will contain nothing but the target and, counterintuitively, the chances of the mind-reader scoring high marks sky-rocket rather than decreasing.

    .../…



  8. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    carryattune (6th March 2014), chocolate (5th March 2014), Curt (7th March 2014), Johnny (5th March 2014), Selene (6th March 2014), Shezbeth (5th March 2014), sunflower (5th March 2014), Wind (5th March 2014)

  9. Link to Post #5
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,225
    Thanks
    11,998
    Thanked 29,752 times in 4,831 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    3. Object (target). Summarizing the above, the target object is always to some extent in the mind of the taskmaster, who may or may not be the tasker. The arbitrary conventional sign is like his customary illegible signature – whether he scribbled it himself or his PA used a rubber stamp is immaterial. There is potentially nothing, no target object ‘out there’ between the sender and the receiver. In fact there is no ‘out there’ at all, just the sender/receiver himself – and there being no distance to cover, there is no distortion of the message.

    In other words, the third side of the triangle is also a broken line, meaning that the concept-object relationship is a conventional one; this is how we perceive perception: as a transitive operation along a continuous line from the brain to the physical object. On the contrary, perception may perhaps better be seen as an intransitive, immaterial operation: the mind does not perceive any thing; it simply perceives. When all three sides of the triangle are reduced to broken lines, the whole triangle collapses into a single point where transmission/reception occurs with no interference.

    This does not mean that the transmitted/received content is equatable to some objective truth, merely that the sender and receiver are ‘on the same wavelength’, ‘of like mind’ – have a shared subjectivity.

    Hence the results of the 3 asteroids experiment are mere preaching to the choir. They would only surprise the uninterested mainstream scientist not open to van Flandern’s research and whose gradualist theory does not need testing, i.e. cannot be tested comparatively at this time for want of any serious alternative. Furthermore, for that person, testing through RV makes no sense at all, as the method is equally ‘crazy’. The results will not surprise someone open-minded enough to accept both the alternative astronomy and the reality of RV. Since that is also a description of the RV researcher himself, the mere asking of the question is enough to suggest the answer. But the experiment itself proves nothing beyond the experimenter’s expectations, and the RVers have simply read his mind – unanimously, because there was nothing else to view.

    For the public receiving this RV result positively, it looks like validation of what they already thought. But it is only alternative science validating alternative science. For anyone else, it looks like validation of what they already thought: alternative science is bunkum. Like a lot of science, this research seems to be telling us what we already know. Fair enough, but this is hardly going to spark a revultion – I meant to write ‘revolution’, but I’ll let the slip of the finger stand

    All the same, this is not to say that there is no objective reality out there, or that there is an objective reality that has been missed. The best and worst that can be said is that the status of the RV material is undecidable: it may be in some sense factual; then again it may be the work of the imagination, or even a malicious deception. We have no way of knowing, and until we do, always supposing that to be possible, ‘scientific remote viewing’ will remain a misnomer, a mere target or task.

    Hence, whatever the merits of remote viewing – including if it is effective as advertised – it is unlikely to lead to any major breakthrough of the kind claimed for the Announcement. Which is not to say that the Announcement will do no good at all…


  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    carryattune (6th March 2014), chocolate (5th March 2014), Johnny (5th March 2014), Shezbeth (5th March 2014), sunflower (5th March 2014), Wind (5th March 2014)

  11. Link to Post #6
    Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th June 2013
    Posts
    1,549
    Thanks
    6,401
    Thanked 7,133 times in 1,445 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    Araucaria, from what I understand, Remote viewing is neither true nor false, it is merely subjective. I don't mean to interject your stream, only want to add to it.

    As far as I have felt about it, the numbers are a way of agreeing upon, and what is the most important is the skillfulness of the project manager, the one creating the task. Not in terms of how he will word the task, although that matters, but what intention he will insert into it.

    Apart from that, I will also leave my opinion about the revelations of 'Master' Courtney ( ) open for the moment.

    I appreciate your effort to create such thread.
    Last edited by chocolate; 5th March 2014 at 12:43.

  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to chocolate For This Post:

    araucaria (5th March 2014), carryattune (6th March 2014), Johnny (5th March 2014), Shezbeth (5th March 2014), sunflower (5th March 2014), Wind (5th March 2014)

  13. Link to Post #7
    Sweden Avalon Member Slorri's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th February 2012
    Posts
    185
    Thanks
    312
    Thanked 517 times in 158 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    Thanks Araucaria for this very well investigated topic. Might even have been so well founded that it made me confused.

    If I understand this correctly, You ask if there might be a hidden code within the TRN?

    We should also know that:
    1. RV works just as well without any TRN (Target Reference Number).
    2. The TRN does not have to be random. It can just as well be an ordinal number.
    3. The reason it is used is to be able to reference the RV sessions to the feedback and the target, within the task. If there was no reference then that could lead to confusion as to where things belong.
    4. Someone else than the tasker can create the TRN, even though that other person or random number generator does not know the target.

  14. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Slorri For This Post:

    araucaria (5th March 2014), carryattune (6th March 2014), chocolate (5th March 2014), Elainie (5th March 2014), Johnny (5th March 2014), sunflower (5th March 2014), Wind (5th March 2014)

  15. Link to Post #8
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,225
    Thanks
    11,998
    Thanked 29,752 times in 4,831 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    Quote Posted by Slorri (here)
    You ask if there might be a hidden code within the TRN?
    Thanks slorri. I am suggesting that there may be more to a simple number/library reference than meets the eye. Maybe this is what chocolate means by 'intention'. But isn't the TRN system designed precisely to eliminate such effects?


  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    carryattune (6th March 2014), chocolate (5th March 2014), Johnny (5th March 2014)

  17. Link to Post #9
    Denmark Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    6th February 2014
    Location
    Denmark
    Age
    53
    Posts
    86
    Thanks
    215
    Thanked 259 times in 76 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    You are making my head hurt, lol. Remote viewing is simple. Why not try it? A bunch of us did that ages ago in a new age forum. People would volunteer and say "Can you describe my place of work?" or home or some other thing like that. Not an object, though. You need to be really good to get objects right. And the rest of us would then try, in our minds eye, to see that place. We would type it up and share it and then be told if we were right. We usually got about 75 % right.

    I suggest just giving it a go. Trying it may give a lot of answers.

    ¤=[Post Update]=¤

    PS: If someone gave me a number to investigate, I would ask "higher self" or "guide" and they would know and take me where I needed to go.

  18. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Ealiss For This Post:

    araucaria (5th March 2014), carryattune (6th March 2014), Elainie (5th March 2014), Johnny (5th March 2014), Selene (6th March 2014), Synchronicity (5th March 2014), Wind (5th March 2014)

  19. Link to Post #10
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    20th February 2014
    Posts
    237
    Thanks
    579
    Thanked 1,043 times in 226 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    RV isn't complicated and we all do it to one point or another, although many don't realize it or consciously attempt it. Focusing on a person or place and knowing, seeing, or sensing what some other place or person looks like is part of any distance healing session (and a person can yes, under the right conditions get information from a distance without knowing details) and for that matter, can be part of deciding where to go on vacation or just paying attention to the information our senses give us. Sure, sometimes if we focus on a place with a person in that place we may get information from the person instead of actually only reading a target, but my point is that there are other ways to see things and places remotely than one set of protocols. In the long run, if the information is correct it is correct, although I realize that trying to eliminate all other sources of information is part of the "scientific process".

    I am not discounting doing it how he describes and teaches, but just saying that this "skill" is also part of other procedures or events. I remember when my son was in school he mentioned he was going to see his girlfriend. I was thinking about her house later that day (how to get there) and I clearly saw a bedroom. I saw it pretty neat except there was a backpack on the floor next to the desk, and when I saw it I felt really anxious about it being there. It stayed with me all day, and when I picked him up I described the room in detail, including the backpack and the feelings I got from it being on the floor. He hadn't ever told me about her room and had only seen it in passing once, but I described it exactly, down to colors and what was on the wall. I told him about the backpack and my desire to pick it up and the anxiety I felt, and he was obviously startled. He said he would pass that on to her, and when I picked him up he said she had forgotten she left the backpack on the floor, but that her parents were not happy if it was there (expected totally neat room) and she went straight to put it away when he told her what I said.

    Now I have seen and felt things my whole life and realize not everyone does that, but it is part of being human. I remember a person we were interviewing, who was in a different location we hadn't discussed, and I kept seeing eyes staring during the whole interview. I was scribbling on a sheet of paper and kept drawing big eyes staring all over the paper. I finally mentioned to her that I kept seeing eyes staring and asked her if that made sense to her, and she was quiet a minute and then said she had big cat posters in her room and realized there were indeed big eyes staring at her from around the room. She wasn't looking at them during the interview and didn't think about them much, but when she thought about it her room was indeed full of staring eyes. Did I get that from her? The room? I could list many other times this has happened, but you get the point.

    It isn't just me...many of us can focus on something and if we just trust the bits of information instead of trying to make the whole picture we find we do see more than we realize.

  20. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Synchronicity For This Post:

    araucaria (5th March 2014), carryattune (6th March 2014), chocolate (5th March 2014), Ealiss (5th March 2014), Elainie (5th March 2014), giovonni (5th March 2014), Johnny (5th March 2014), Selene (6th March 2014), Wind (5th March 2014)

  21. Link to Post #11
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    20th February 2014
    Posts
    237
    Thanks
    579
    Thanked 1,043 times in 226 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    Quote Posted by Ealiss (here)
    You are making my head hurt, lol. Remote viewing is simple. Why not try it? A bunch of us did that ages ago in a new age forum. People would volunteer and say "Can you describe my place of work?" or home or some other thing like that. Not an object, though. You need to be really good to get objects right. And the rest of us would then try, in our minds eye, to see that place. We would type it up and share it and then be told if we were right. We usually got about 75 % right.

    I suggest just giving it a go. Trying it may give a lot of answers.



    ¤=[Post Update]=¤

    PS: If someone gave me a number to investigate, I would ask "higher self" or "guide" and they would know and take me where I needed to go.
    Yes, good description of how it can go. Some ask guides or higher self (which I do as well), and sometimes when given just a target number it feels as if I'm going into a tunnel toward the place. It's really easy to get distracted or put our ego into it and start interpreting what we see, which usually ruins the whole session, but 75% is pretty good in my view. I agree objects are harder, too. Having someone put a picture up on a laptop and not look at it, and view that from another room is fun, too. You can also have the person look at it and see if your percentage correct improves, possibly from getting the information from the person.

    It's nice to exercise the old brain and senses

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Synchronicity For This Post:

    araucaria (5th March 2014), Ealiss (5th March 2014), Johnny (5th March 2014), Selene (6th March 2014), Wind (5th March 2014)

  23. Link to Post #12
    Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th June 2013
    Posts
    1,549
    Thanks
    6,401
    Thanked 7,133 times in 1,445 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    Quote Posted by araucaria (here)
    Quote Posted by Slorri (here)
    You ask if there might be a hidden code within the TRN?
    Thanks slorri. I am suggesting that there may be more to a simple number/library reference than meets the eye. Maybe this is what chocolate means by 'intention'. But isn't the TRN system designed precisely to eliminate such effects?

    Yes, the number is designed to eliminate the possible connection between the intention of the person asking the question (the one who makes the target), and the one who remotely views the target. The idea is to have the most objective result possible, if that is in any way possible. But yes, RV can be done without a number, too, although than I would call it Out of Body ( ) experience.

    If I want to RV objects/events/outcomes for myself, to serve me in my life, the best way is to write targets down with corresponding target numbers, several at once, to leave all of them until presumably I forget which number corresponds to which target, and than to pick up and RV one of them at a time. That is how I can eliminate my personal intention, which will only skew the final result, from myself.

    As a result of several people engaged in a RV session, the 'subjective-ism' becomes less 'subjective' and more 'objective' because one will notice that several common traits seem to occur. For example if 5 people RV a picture with a mountain, most of them will have some graphic and verbal representation of natural object as mountain, and may be one will see more of a man-made object. So the common trait from the other 4 will be accepted as more accurate to the RV-ed object.

    The main purpose of RV is to view a possible 'something' with the help of the least amount of rational 'man-made' thinking, and more intuitive or subconscious mind involved. In a way I see it best described as a conscious Out of Body Observation done by at least 3 people, so you have 3 POV of the same thing.

    The whole theory of RV and practice is much more complex, and I am not all that expert in it, so I have shared only what I understand consciously.
    Last edited by chocolate; 5th March 2014 at 15:39.

  24. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to chocolate For This Post:

    araucaria (5th March 2014), Ealiss (5th March 2014), Johnny (5th March 2014), Selene (6th March 2014), Wind (5th March 2014)

  25. Link to Post #13
    Denmark Avalon Member Johnny's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th September 2013
    Age
    74
    Posts
    699
    Thanks
    10,434
    Thanked 2,245 times in 624 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    Quote Posted by chocolate (here)
    [........]

    The whole theory of RV and practice is much more complex, and I am not all that expert in it, so I have shared only what I understand consciously.
    Why not, it is much more simple ?? It is all about awareness, and we are able to be aware of a lot of things on several levels, at the same time !!! ( NOW it is complicated ) It depends what we focus on. (NOW it is simple again )

    Cheers Johnny
    There would be no life here on Earth without YOU, at least not as YOU know it. /Johnny

    The fact that I pressed the thanks button is not necessarily because I agree with you, but more so that I can see the threads I follow, that I have read your post.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Johnny For This Post:

    Roisin (5th March 2014)

  27. Link to Post #14
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    28th January 2012
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    4,895
    Thanked 7,275 times in 1,781 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    Just my own .02 on this topic.

    I'm fascinated by numbers which is why I could really relate to that Nic Cage movie "Knowing". From my own experiences and results of my experiments, numbers are either seen or heard so I've known for many, many years that the basic structure of our universe is comprised of numbers.

    My higher mind and those intelligences that I work with have indicated this to me over and over again in numerous seemingly inexplicable ways.

    Numbers often play a big role in synchonicity's; not to mention how numerology works with that phenomenon too.

    Someday, we will know more about how all of this works and will be able to explain it in a coherent manner that will be consistent with the level of quantum physics we will have advanced to at that point in time. Currently, we are not at that stage yet.

    When numbers are used in Remote Viewing and in various unstructured clairvoyant exercises too, they allow us to connect with those corresponding numbers in the information we are seeking or in the case of RVing, the "target".

    Everything is comprised of numbers and all of the numbers are used only in different orders and sequences. Everything out there has their own unique set of numbers where, many times, the logic of the numeric arrangements are intentionally set that way depending on what the information or target is so that we can understand those arrangements more clearly.

    It's up to those other unknown forces to match up those numbers to inform us in one way or the other about the information we are searching for. Some will say it's their higher mind that is assisting in such processes and others will say that there are also other intelligences in the mix too.

    Anyway, it's all very fascinating. Ingo Swann knew everything about what I just described above which is why he included the assignment of coordinates to the target in his model of Remote Viewing.
    Last edited by Roisin; 5th March 2014 at 16:58.

  28. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Roisin For This Post:

    araucaria (5th March 2014), Elainie (5th March 2014), Johnny (5th March 2014), Selene (6th March 2014), Wind (5th March 2014)

  29. Link to Post #15
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,225
    Thanks
    11,998
    Thanked 29,752 times in 4,831 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    Thanks everyone for your input. Although the topic is SRV, scientific remote viewing, with all the theorizing that this entails, I am happy to see contributions from practitioners, and I hope you don’t feel too much like the proverbial centipede asked to explain how it walks You are not at all off-topic because your ideas add a bit of contrast to the picture.

    Synchronicity, I am not interested in visiting untidy rooms, I get enough of that with ordinary stereoscopic vision thank you very much! RV is easy you say. Well, gifted and hard-working practitioners of anything make what they do look easy and it is easy for them now. But what I find most interesting is your emphasis on the fun aspect. RV should be fun, as you say. I feel ‘military grade’ specialists taking time off from looking after weapons-grade plutonium are definitely not too concerned about having fun. Donald Winnicott regarded psychoanalysis as play. I think maybe the players in SRV are in some ways performing psychotherapy, with the remote viewer as the therapist in a state of ‘evenly-suspended attention’ while following the free associations made by his patient, and acting as one ‘supposed to know’, with transference the result. This is not to suggest a mental problem: the idea comes to me from a creative art perspective, where this is seen as an invaluable tool.

    I want to keep the focus here on the scientific/theoretical aspect, because this is where Courtney Brown is on topic for a forum ‘where science and spirituality meet’. While it is more than likely that science cannot meet spirituality without making great strides away from what generally passes for science, this would seem to mean that the opposite is also true: that traditional spirituality (as opposed to religion) has work to do to make this possible. Basically, if science needs to include the non-physical, then as a corollary, spirituality needs to become more grounded.

    Also, this has a topical aspect in connection with Courtney Brown’s imminent announcement. We need to be as prepared as we can to interpret this in the most positive manner possible, avoiding any pitfalls.


  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    chocolate (5th March 2014), Johnny (5th March 2014)

  31. Link to Post #16
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    20th February 2014
    Posts
    237
    Thanks
    579
    Thanked 1,043 times in 226 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    Quote Posted by araucaria (here)
    Thanks everyone for your input. Although the topic is SRV, scientific remote viewing, with all the theorizing that this entails, I am happy to see contributions from practitioners, and I hope you don’t feel too much like the proverbial centipede asked to explain how it walks You are not at all off-topic because your ideas add a bit of contrast to the picture.

    Synchronicity, I am not interested in visiting untidy rooms, I get enough of that with ordinary stereoscopic vision thank you very much! RV is easy you say. Well, gifted and hard-working practitioners of anything make what they do look easy and it is easy for them now. But what I find most interesting is your emphasis on the fun aspect. RV should be fun, as you say. I feel ‘military grade’ specialists taking time off from looking after weapons-grade plutonium are definitely not too concerned about having fun. Donald Winnicott regarded psychoanalysis as play. I think maybe the players in SRV are in some ways performing psychotherapy, with the remote viewer as the therapist in a state of ‘evenly-suspended attention’ while following the free associations made by his patient, and acting as one ‘supposed to know’, with transference the result. This is not to suggest a mental problem: the idea comes to me from a creative art perspective, where this is seen as an invaluable tool.

    I want to keep the focus here on the scientific/theoretical aspect, because this is where Courtney Brown is on topic for a forum ‘where science and spirituality meet’. While it is more than likely that science cannot meet spirituality without making great strides away from what generally passes for science, this would seem to mean that the opposite is also true: that traditional spirituality (as opposed to religion) has work to do to make this possible. Basically, if science needs to include the non-physical, then as a corollary, spirituality needs to become more grounded.

    Also, this has a topical aspect in connection with Courtney Brown’s imminent announcement. We need to be as prepared as we can to interpret this in the most positive manner possible, avoiding any pitfalls.
    I see what you mean by the topic, but that is where I see part of the problem. RV...even SRV...just isn't complicated or mystical unless it is made to be so. And waiting for an announcement that is "scientific" is no different than waiting for anyone else who "sees" things (and has been confirmed to get good results). I guess part of why I don't see why waiting for what he may say is something important and life-changing is that RV isn't really spiritual unless you do it in a spiritual context. Some of what energy workers do is spiritual, but a good part of it just isn't. Funny you mentioned grounding, since that is one big part of RV and energy work as well, and we have been willing to meet science and have reached for it many times to be usually snickered at or ignored...maybe not quite happening at this point, since science isn't just based on data, but on belief systems as well, but there is hope.

    But I do see your point on the topic...perhaps I have felt the energies too much from the situation at his end not to feel the human issues that are around it. There is much human related to this announcement...enough said on my part

  32. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Synchronicity For This Post:

    Ealiss (5th March 2014), Johnny (5th March 2014), Selene (6th March 2014), Wind (5th March 2014)

  33. Link to Post #17
    Denmark Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    6th February 2014
    Location
    Denmark
    Age
    53
    Posts
    86
    Thanks
    215
    Thanked 259 times in 76 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    Well put, Synchronicity.

    I do feel also that the human related part is perhaps the main thing.

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to Ealiss For This Post:

    Johnny (5th March 2014)

  35. Link to Post #18
    Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th June 2013
    Posts
    1,549
    Thanks
    6,401
    Thanked 7,133 times in 1,445 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    Quote Posted by araucaria (here)
    Thanks everyone for your input. Although the topic is SRV, scientific remote viewing, with all the theorizing that this entails, I am happy to see contributions from practitioners, and I hope you don’t feel too much like the proverbial centipede asked to explain how it walks You are not at all off-topic because your ideas add a bit of contrast to the picture.

    Synchronicity, I am not interested in visiting untidy rooms, I get enough of that with ordinary stereoscopic vision thank you very much! RV is easy you say. Well, gifted and hard-working practitioners of anything make what they do look easy and it is easy for them now. But what I find most interesting is your emphasis on the fun aspect. RV should be fun, as you say. I feel ‘military grade’ specialists taking time off from looking after weapons-grade plutonium are definitely not too concerned about having fun. Donald Winnicott regarded psychoanalysis as play. I think maybe the players in SRV are in some ways performing psychotherapy, with the remote viewer as the therapist in a state of ‘evenly-suspended attention’ while following the free associations made by his patient, and acting as one ‘supposed to know’, with transference the result. This is not to suggest a mental problem: the idea comes to me from a creative art perspective, where this is seen as an invaluable tool.

    I want to keep the focus here on the scientific/theoretical aspect, because this is where Courtney Brown is on topic for a forum ‘where science and spirituality meet’. While it is more than likely that science cannot meet spirituality without making great strides away from what generally passes for science, this would seem to mean that the opposite is also true: that traditional spirituality (as opposed to religion) has work to do to make this possible. Basically, if science needs to include the non-physical, then as a corollary, spirituality needs to become more grounded.

    Also, this has a topical aspect in connection with Courtney Brown’s imminent announcement. We need to be as prepared as we can to interpret this in the most positive manner possible, avoiding any pitfalls.
    Perfect post, I could say, and very familiar feeling in it. I just happened to write much of the same.

    That put aside for the moment, RV is nothing less than complex, but to take it in a scientific way one needs to discuss the base of quantum physics, psychology, biology, electro-magnetism as part of Newtonian physics, an probably several more branches of science.
    To find the spiritual aspect of it, one needs to visit the Out of body thread in Spirituality on the forum (I am getting familiar with one of them at present here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...er-Self-fit-in), and finally, we need a supercomputer, as Carmody's brain for example , to meet the two aspects.

    I hope it will be of use to post few easier to digest videos, one here:


    Araucaria, artist people, we indeed do RV all the time, we just don't label it like that. If you visit TraineeHuman's OBE thread (the link in the text above the video), he has a few posts with practical ways of creative thinking through RV, or from the perspective of psychology and the way our mind operates. The useful posts are at the start of the thread, somewhere around page 10 or so. There is also a direct reference between OBE and RV.
    Just mentioning, in case anyone feels compelled to investigate.

    I can't make anyone see, but the least I can do is just point in some direction that seems right to me.
    Last edited by chocolate; 5th March 2014 at 21:30.

  36. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to chocolate For This Post:

    Johnny (5th March 2014), Selene (6th March 2014)

  37. Link to Post #19
    Denmark Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    6th February 2014
    Location
    Denmark
    Age
    53
    Posts
    86
    Thanks
    215
    Thanked 259 times in 76 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    Forgive me, but to do remote viewing is as easy as sitting down, closing your eyes and see. There are no complicated steps to take. No complicated scientific elements in it. People don't have to be super human.

    It seems to me, that those who can do remote viewing keep telling you how simple it is and yet those who can't do it, keeps telling us how complicated it is.

  38. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ealiss For This Post:

    Johnny (5th March 2014), Selene (6th March 2014), Synchronicity (5th March 2014)

  39. Link to Post #20
    Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th June 2013
    Posts
    1,549
    Thanks
    6,401
    Thanked 7,133 times in 1,445 posts

    Default Re: The principle behind remote viewing: a critical analysis

    Quote Posted by Ealiss (here)
    Forgive me, but to do remote viewing is as easy as sitting down, closing your eyes and see. There are no complicated steps to take. No complicated scientific elements in it. People don't have to be super human.

    It seems to me, that those who can do remote viewing keep telling you how simple it is and yet those who can't do it, keeps telling us how complicated it is.
    That is probably true, but it is only one of the possibilities .

    I do it(RV) all the time, and I do feel it is not as simple as you say it is. And if you think RV is just simply closing your eyes and seeing, you should research a bit more, I would say.
    To start off, in RV session the eyes should be kept open at all times. Just stating one of the rules that are a part of the protocol.

    There was the saying 'the more I know the more I realize how little I know', or something in that fashion.

    Cheers.

    PS. This is not a thread I have started, but apart from that, it is a great one, and I would greatly appreciate, if it could be kept in its original form, and with the initial intention in mind.
    It is a matter of respect and understanding.
    Thank you all in advance.
    Last edited by chocolate; 5th March 2014 at 21:38.

  40. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to chocolate For This Post:

    Johnny (5th March 2014), Wind (5th March 2014)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts