Remote Viewing

by funkyderek 161 Replies latest jw friends

  • rem
    rem

    BboysGF,

    It seems that when proving this skill there is no room for error which is ludicrous. Not even an olympic althete can run his winning time every run. In weightlifting you sometimes can lift alot more than other days. In iceskating you can't perform a triple lutes perfectly every time. Infact most times they don't. But if I don't do some test correctly many people will write off my abilities as fiction. Just cause the ice skater can't land her lutes on a particular day doesn't mean she can't ever do it. I feel it is an unfare standard.

    This is not how science works. I can’t speak to James Randi’s million-dollar prize – I haven’t read the details, but I can speak to how scientific experiments work. There is not a 100% accuracy requirement in these tests. There just needs to be a degree of accuracy that is significantly above chance. This accuracy has to be reproducible. The experiments span over many trials, so having one or two bad days should not skew the results.

    I think it’s fair to categorize psi claims with a physical test of skill. A skater can either skate or not, but there are degrees off skill. We should see the same thing in people who claim to have psi powers. They should either be able to do it or not – at least having accuracy better than chance. Some may do much better than that.

    It’s interesting that some of the scientific studies we’ve discussed before have had only people who claim they have psi abilities a subjects. It’s not as if there was just a random sampling of people off the street and most of them could not perform the skill. The people who participated really believed they had a special skill. Probably their friends and family did too. But when the analysis was in, the accuracy was not significantly better than chance and in many cases was worse! This only bolsters the theory that this is a psychological phenomenon and not a psi one.

    I can't understand how people(noone in perticular) can have blind faith in something that serves the self like religion but something that can't be proven to help you is disregarded as 'trickery''superstition' and a darned many other explenations that would be better served being applied to ones spiritual beleifs rather than something that I have proven to many people.

    Most of the world claims god exhists in one form or another yet i have found no such extraordinary evidence to back IT up. And all i do is see things in a book where a piece of paper is drawn. Religion is what many based their entire lived and morals and principals on. you'd think THAT should require more evidence than my skills do yet i have experienced way more people willing to believe in mythical beings than something i can prove right infront of them. Now god...there's an amusing anecdote.

    I couldn’t have said it any better myself. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I’m not sure if you were ever a JW, but after I left the JW religion I made a pact with myself that I would no longer believe in things that are not supported by evidence. I had to re-examine everything I once believed in. After reading many books – and I’m still reading - I’ve found no evidence for a global flood, special creation, god(s), paranormal claims, ufo sightings, Bigfoot/Lochness monster sightings, crop circles by aliens, alien abductions, cold fusion, perpetual motion machines, most OT history, ghosts, Satan, life after death, etc. I now require positive evidence for a claim before I believe it – or at least I try to, especially for extraordinary claims.

    I don’t believe this has made life boring or killed all of the mysteries of life at all. There are still many questions, but just believing stuff without evidence has gotten many people in trouble – like my parents who joined the JW’s and sucked me into it. I believe that is the essence of superstition and can only harm us – just as religion (which I believe to be organized superstition) has divided and controlled mankind for ages. There are very many things that we still don’t understand in this world – bboy has alluded to some with Quantum Mechanics. Now that stuff weirds me out! But the fact is that those weird QM things are observed and reproducible phenomenon. I accept that they do happen even though I don’t understand it. It is an extraordinary claim that has the extraordinary evidence to back it.

    I didn’t see the Sony story as evidence. I alluded to the story about cold-fusion that was very similar. Have you ever read about it? Is it really evidence when a private party does experiments and claims they have proved a phenomenon, but they are not willing to share their protocols and data? Independent claims are not evidence. Reproducible claims are. Corporations are hardly honest anyway. If you’ve ever worked for one (I do) you would know how much dishonesty and corruption there is all for the sake of money. Sony does what is best for its shareholders, hardly an unbiased source for research. They could have claimed that cold-fusion has been proved for all I care. I don’t buy it.

    I remeber learning things in school that the same scientist now say aren't true after all. Scientist know very little they are fumbling around in the dark too. There are medical methods that have been proven to work for centuries that they will not embrace because they can't understand how it works so they say it doesn't work. They can't understand what we have been discusing so to them it doesn't exhist. How can anyone learn anything if they are so quick to dismiss anything they can't understand. It's science or nothing. It's arrogant to beleive that science is the only truth when we honestly as a speices know very little about the world we live in, our own bodies and minds.

    If you really thought about history, you probably wouldn’t make such disparaging remarks about science. Science is probably the only reason you are alive today. You probably would have died from your stroke or from a nasty disease or starvation as a little child if it weren’t for science and western medicine. People forget how bad things really were before western medicine and science.

    True we don’t know everything, but please give the human race recognition for what we do know – in the name of science. We probably know a lot more than you realize, which is amazing since the scientific method is a relatively new invention in human history (think about the quality of life before science). Science is self-correcting. Scientists rarely make 100% certain claims about anything, but when scientific information gets filtered down to the media, such as newspapers and magazines, much caution is thrown to the wind. They make it sound as if scientists are saying things which they aren’t. Thus when there are corrections down the road, it looks like scientists were dogmatic about their prior stance. In reality it is usually the media who is responsible for this reputation.

    I don’t think it’s true that scientists brush aside things that they don’t understand. They flock to such things. QM is a case in point – now that is weird stuff, but it is real science. Even relativity and evolution were not fully accepted immediately, but in the face of evidence, you’ll be hard pressed to see scientists brush an intriguing theory or finding aside. Most scientists keep an open mind about things, but they have a high standard for what constitutes evidence - a standard that may be higher than what you and I are used to.

    If such ancient medical methods work, then that is well and good, but if they don’t, then there should be no reason not to criticize them. There are things that are generally accepted as having benefit, even though we don’t know exactly how it works. An example is acupuncture. Most scientists hold judgment on such things until there is evidence for and against. In the beginning, there was no positive evidence, but now it seems that is changing. It seems that there may be evidence (albeit inconclusive at the moment) that acupuncture has benefits. Before scientists and doctors can give it a wholesale recommendation, though, more work will have to be done – but I can hardly understand how people can think the scientific community is so closed minded.

    I think challenging beliefs and claims is a good thing – not a bad thing. Otherwise, we would never really know what is true and false, good and bad. We would just be at the whims of whoever speaks the loudest. That is why I require evidence before I believe.

    rem

    "Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
    ..........Bertrand Russell

  • larc
    larc

    bboy's friend,

    Since I have not read all the posts, I was not aware of your medical problem, and I can understand that you would not want to engage in an activity that would endanger your health. Now, from what you wrote, it is not the remote viewing that could threaten you, but the involvement of money. Did I understand you correctly? If so, I would like to suggest the same experiment that I mentioned earlier with no money involved.

    I am on the net using webtv. On the wall behind the tv is a picture. I can e mail a discription of it to Simon. You can wait until a day in the next few weeks when you have the feeling that the image is clear to you. I can describe anything about the location of my house and its appearance that will help you. Does that sound fair?
    If there are any other conditions or details that would make this a fair test, please let me know.

  • StifflersErSlayersBrother
    StifflersErSlayersBrother

    I see a man and a woman holding each other on what looks like dock near the coast.... oh wait,nevermind, im just picking up porn again

  • bboynekosgirlfriend
    bboynekosgirlfriend
    but I can hardly understand how people can think the scientific community is so closed minded.

    You are a prime example. Without evidence you won't beleive. You realise that beleiving something with no evidence is bad but it is just as awful to NEVER beleive in something UNLESS there is evidence. Closed mindednes is just that-Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.

    You did a 180 and belive ONLY in what science can prove. That's is not much better in that science seems to be a replacement for religion for you. There is a difference between questioning things and stubbornly not beleiving without evidence.

    To me it is sad that JWs take away that right with children to beleive in santa and the easter bunny. It makes for such a sceptical person.Never allowed to make beleive. Always blaming creativity on satan. Taking away toys with guns and not allowing certain things to be watched or drawn. What a sad childhood. My childhood ability to beleive gave me the opotunity to be more open-minded about things that one can't touch and feel. Like love. I can't prove my love, there's no test that CAN but i would hope my boyfriend had the faith to beleive that i do love him. It would be sad to me if he made me prove it scientifically before he beleived it. I really have no beleif in god but i can't say without any doubt that it can't be true just cause no one can prove it just as those who do beleive should completely rule out that he may not exhist.

    And oh yes the great scientist made my stay at the hospital nice with TV and a mechanical bed but as far as recovery my body was on it's own. The doctors couldn't figure out why it had happened. For two days i had hoards of med. students poking me and asking me what the date was and then i was forgotten. I was told i would be there for many weeks and then a nurse told me after a week i was being released without any doctor talking to me. They couldn't prove how it had occured so they ignored me. Not to say anything of the scientific conmunity but it was not the best experience in it's favor!:)

    Larc- I would prefer if you just picked a target without telling me it's location or exact media as then my concious brain kind of fools with me. Like i'll start thinking 'well what would someone have a poster of above their TV?' It's best if it's a total mystery. Just tell me you have a target.(if you use the poster I keeel yoooooo, hehe) But wait a bit cause I might be doing someone elses test and miltiple target can get confusing! (yeah it all sounds ridiculous but that's the way it is!)

  • larc
    larc

    bboys' friend,

    I am not sure what you want me to do. I thought the cues I was giving you would be of help. So, I should just tell you I have a target in mind and that is it. OK, I assume that if would have to be a graphic of some sort, so I can verify that it exists. Could you elaborate further, because I am not sure exactly what you want me to do.

  • bboynekosgirlfriend
    bboynekosgirlfriend

    ok. Just for anyone interested this is how it works for me. I see a bunch of lines and images in my head, i draw them and then check the results against my chosen subject. I never know what i've drawn until i see the subject and then i go OHHHHHHH THAT'S what that was. There was a famous remote viewer(who actually just sign up to do tests 'cause he needed the money while in college and had no previouse ability or notion of ability)who drew 7UP but upside down and had no idea it was 7UP that he saw. I felt the test that started this thread was not fair as he based the amount of money received by what you recognized which is not how it works.

    So...ok. It is better if it's a graphic because it's more defined with lines and so on. A 3D object is far more difficult for me and i have yet to acheive it. The only information i would request is where you are located in the world so i have something concrete to target into. Please don't lie. I'm going to spend the next day or so brushing up. I have NEVER attempted such a test so I don't claim that i can do it. It's more for my own curiosity more than anything else and i don't want it to prove or disprove that such a talent exhists so if that is what you are looking to do I really don't want to participate cause that's just way too much pressure. It's an experiment nothing more. Also i would like an impartial middle man that i can send my results to who will look at them with an open mind. The fact is i get alot of 'noise' or interference(some what like tuning into a radio station. You get other stations coming into the background until you manage to tune into the exact frequency) and often times I will have some drawings that have nothing to do with the subject i'm targeting. This usually happens when i first start but i will include everything i come across in this experiment. As stated previously give me a few days to brush up and for you to pick your target and send it to an impartial middle man and i'm good to go.

  • bboyneko
    bboyneko

    she meant the 7UP logo, the target was a 7up logo, the guy drew it but upside down, only after comparing the results he realized what he had seen. :)

    Just clarifying cuz it was a little vaque

  • larc
    larc

    bboy's friend,

    If you feel this is going to cause you stress, there is no reason to proceed.
    Before giving you my location, I want to be clear on the level of detail you want. On an earlier post, you said that you did not want a description of my house or the surroundings of the target in question, so I don't want to respond with anything that would invalidate your efforts. If I provide the city, I can verify that in several ways. JAVA, a poster here, lives in the same city. Also, you can e mail me and I can provide personal information that will allow to verify the city.

    As far as noise, like radio interference, you can take your time and respond when you think you have a clear signal.

    As I mentioned before, I can send a discription of the target to Simon, and he can judge the accuracy of your description. I think he would be a neutral third party. If you can think of other ways to make this on the up and up, I would be interested.

  • bboyneko
    bboyneko

    I have invited a group of experienced remote viewers to post here, some of which were directly involved with stargate at fort meade maryland..hopefully they will participate as well in an experiment like this :)

  • rem
    rem

    bboysGF,

    Without evidence you won't beleive. You realise that beleiving something with no evidence is bad but it is just as awful to NEVER beleive in something UNLESS there is evidence. Closed mindednes is just that-Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.

    I probably didn't make myself clear in my last message - it was so long, so I'd like to clarify a point. I do not believe that holding off judgment (keeping an open mind) and not having an active belief in something are mutually exclusive.

    Case in point: I do not believe in god or any gods. That does NOT mean that I believe there could never be a god or gods. We simply do not know. I just don't believe there is a god because there is no evidence for it. I am open to evidence.

    You could say that while I don't have an active belief in many phenomenon, I'm a tad agnostic as well, because there could be evidence in the phenomenon's favor tomorrow - how should I know. But I don't have to believe in something that doesn't have any evidence, do I?

    I think you are categorizing scientific thinking in too black and white a fashion. There are scientists who believe a whole range of things. Most are very skeptical, just as I am. But being skeptical is not synonymous with being dogmatic. It just means relying on evidence for belief in claims. Beliefs can change when evidence changes - this is the opposite of superstition and religion.

    I believe it is extremely important to rely on evidence and withhold belief in a claim without it. Otherwise you have no way of determining between fraudulent and good claims. Do you believe that we should believe everything people say since that is the only way to have a truly open mind?

    People used to believe a whole lot of weird things that science later showed had no backing. People believed that bleeding helped cure people. Science showed that this did not help, but actually harmed many people. People thought the Earth was both flat and the center of the universe. Science showed these beliefs to be mistaken. What other system of learning has given us the knowledge we have today?

    The same is true today. Many healing techniques (psi or herbal, etc.) may be benign but ineffective - some are downright fraudulent. Some proponents are leading people to distrust western medicine and forgo treatment that has been shown to work scientifically. Case in point is homeopathic remedies - remedies that are made up of only water. Taking only water as medicine can be very dangerous for a person who is truly ill!

    Also, there is the fact that many grieving people are taken advantage of by unscrupulous psychic fraudsters. Whether it comforts the grieving family members or not - do you think that is right? I think these liars should be in jail for taking advantage of people at their most vulnerable moment in life.

    Anyway, with remote viewing, I don't believe in it, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to new ideas. I would be interested in the psi proponent's explanation for the mechanism for psi phenomenon, as it seems to go against our current understanding of physics. So far there has been no scientific evidence for psi, so why should I believe in it - what good will it do me? So far the evidence shows that it will do me absolutely no good. If psi claims can be backed by evidence, then I will have to accept that - that is having an open mind.

    Otherwise, I'd have to ask you why you don't believe there is an invisible pink unicorn living inside my head. When you understand that, then you will understand where I'm coming from.

    rem

    "Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
    ..........Bertrand Russell

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit