Remote view and space exploration

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Remote view and space exploration

We need breaktrough in math to made breaktrough in physics. Maybe we need breaktrough in psychology and biology first to make a breaktrough in space exploration.

So, can Remote viewers see whats on Titan moon, for example?

Big Bad Voodoo

Edited August 23, 2013 by Big Bad Voodoo

[stevemagegod]

So, can Remote viewers see whats on Titan moon, for example?

Yes they can. But the data is more reliably if it is done in a team of remote viewers.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Yes they can. But the data is more reliably if it is done in a team of remote viewers.

Why dont they find new earth then?

Big Bad Voodoo

[supervike]

Sorry, not to be argumentitive, but how is there any 'reliability' in remote viewing at all?

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Sorry, not to be argumentitive, but how is there any 'reliability' in remote viewing at all?

But idea is great, isnt? I mean if they are able to see far...why not?

Big Bad Voodoo

Edited September 17, 2013 by Big Bad Voodoo

[White Crane Feather]

Remote view and space exploration

We need breaktrough in math to made breaktrough in physics. Maybe we need breaktrough in psychology and biology first to make a breaktrough in space exploration.

So, can Remote viewers see whats on Titan moon, for example?

Big Bad Voodoo

I think it's exceedingly difficult. Human minds carry with them all sorts of contextual interpretations. While I believe consciousness has access to far off places, I don't think it can be translated with any real accuracy through a mind.

[Beany]

I think it's exceedingly difficult. Human minds carry with them all sorts of contextual interpretations. While I believe consciousness has access to far off places, I don't think it can be translated with any real accuracy through a mind.

That's a problem I see, too, how to accurately translate what we're seeing into words with contamination from our own context, and then how can it be validated?

[Timothy]

That and the fact that the only fact about remote viewing is that it has never been proven. Should be easy to prove and document so it's a little fishy eh?

Until you know what it is and how it works, you can't have a very good discussion.

Don't you think NASA etc. would be all over this if they thought there was any substance in it? Would be a much cheaper alternative and fix all their budget woes if they could have a group of people telling them what's out there without having to leave earth.

[Beany]

Well, the US government has poured a lot of money into research, and the Stanford Research Institute has dedicated years to its study and use.There seems to be some pretty credible evidence that this phenomena exists, but I'm guessing that there are problems with consistency & accuracy, as it's certainly not, at this point, an exact science. It makes me think of that movie, The Men Who Stared at Goats.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

the Stanford Research Institute has dedicated years to its study and use.

Any link to backed that claim?

Big Bad Voodoo

[Beany]

Any link to backed that claim?

Big Bad Voodoo

I suppose I could go out and find some links, but this is pretty general knowledge for those interested in remote viewing. If you're interested, about 20 seconds on Google will get you a lot of websites; like anything dealing with psychic phenomena, though, you should consider the sources. The Stanford Research Institute is commonly known as SRI, which may be something you've heard heard referenced. I recommend starting with a search on SRI.

[J. K.]

That's a problem I see, too, how to accurately translate what we're seeing into words with contamination from our own context, and then how can it be validated?

I don't quite understand you. What exactly would a remote viewer be viewing which couldn't be translated into words? Wouldn't they be seeing things just as we see with our eyes around us? Landscape or room, objects, etc. How could that be contaminated?

As for being validated, all that would require is a test subject who gives an honest answer about a view. For example, what three things are sitting on top of my computer monitor?

[White Crane Feather]

I don't quite understand you. What exactly would a remote viewer be viewing which couldn't be translated into words? Wouldn't they be seeing things just as we see with our eyes around us? Landscape or room, objects, etc. How could that be contaminated?

As for being validated, all that would require is a test subject who gives an honest answer about a view. For example, what three things are sitting on top of my computer monitor?

It's precisely that one is not viewing with actual eyes or obtaining signals from light that creates problems. The viewer would be only using mind. This lends itself to difficulties. Our minds identify objects and create the image to be revignized. Changing the way inputs are received can muddy the waters when identifying what something is.

A fan blade might look like a skateboard. If it is possible to remote view with the clarity demanded by skeptics, it will take a tremendous amount of practice.

[lost bird]

Actually the (wisdom) of remote viewer is not REMOTE. Not deeper than any stupid man. Therefore it is not wisdom, it is foolishness. If they are wise , they will tell us the length breadth and high th of Allah merciful, and measure his forgiveness.

[Timothy]

Well, the US government has poured a lot of money into research, and the Stanford Research Institute has dedicated years to its study and use.There seems to be some pretty credible evidence that this phenomena exists, but I'm guessing that there are problems with consistency & accuracy, as it's certainly not, at this point, an exact science. It makes me think of that movie, The Men Who Stared at Goats.

'Problems' - being that they cannot get any results outside the realm of dumb luck, chance, expected probability etc.

Not an exact science!? You can't even show it is a credible thing. It's about as far from an exact science as you can get.

Edit: Quoted the wrong reply initially.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Timonthy

[Beany]

'Problems' - being that they cannot get any results outside the realm of dumb luck, chance, expected probability etc.

Not an exact science!? You can't even show it is a credible thing. It's about as far from an exact science as you can get.

Edit: Quoted the wrong reply initially.

I've had my own remote viewing experiences, so I don't doubt the phenomena. I am unable, however, to see how it could be controlled enough or precise enough to have any valuable military or industrial applications. You might to do a little research on the topic, it's very interesting, and indicates just how weird the military can be when they think they might have found an edge.

[donktheclown]

Why dont they find new earth then?

Big Bad Voodoo

Get your Mom to put some random pictures in a number of envelopes and have her give each picture / envelope (one pic per envelope) a 4 digit random number. You take one envelope and tell us the number your Mom put on it and we will attempt to see what the pic is. You can't know what the picture is though, it would ruin the attempt.

[DeaDree]

Research on psychic functioning, conducted over a two decade period, is examined to determine whether or not the phenomenon has been scientifically established. A secondary question is whether or not it is useful for government purposes. The primary work examined in this report was government sponsored research conducted at Stanford Research Institute, later known as SRI International, and at Science Applications International Corporation, known as SAIC. Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud. The magnitude of psychic functioning exhibited appears to be in the range between what social scientists call a small and medium effect. That means that it is reliable enough to be replicated in properly conducted experiments, with sufficient trials to achieve the long-run statistical results needed for replicability. A number of other patterns have been found, suggestive of how to conduct more productive experiments and applied psychic functioning. For instance, it doesn't appear that a sender is needed. Precognition, in which the answer is known to no one until a future time, appears to work quite well. Recent experiments suggest that if there is a psychic sense then it works much like our other five senses, by detecting change. Given that physicists are currently grappling with an understanding of time, it may be that a psychic sense exists that scans the future for major change, much as our eyes scan the environment for visual change or our ears allow us to respond to sudden changes in sound. It is recommended that future experiments focus on understanding how this phenomenon works, and on how to make it as useful as possible. There is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data.

[DingoLingo]

Actually the (wisdom) of remote viewer is not REMOTE. Not deeper than any stupid man. Therefore it is not wisdom, it is foolishness. If they are wise , they will tell us the length breadth and high th of Allah merciful, and measure his forgiveness.

huh?