Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info
Remote Viewing info page spacer

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion, Yahoo Groups.
Source Location: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/
Filetype: Archive. Topic: Remote Viewing. Blocked: by topic detail.
Archive Storage: www.firedocs.com/pjrv/ and http://www.dojopsi.info/pjrv/
Archivist: Palyne PJ Gaenir (PJRV, Palyne, Firedocs RV, TKR and the Dojo Psi.? )



begin archive





pjrv : Messages : ?566-?787 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/?566?? ) ?006/07/01 00:16:36
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#?566 From: "pjgaenir" Date: Sun Mar 9, ?003 9:37 pm Subject: ARV evaluation thoughts -- pjgaenir It happens often that I get ideas after someone else sparks it in conversation, but I usually take all the credit, LOL. I read a clip in an email tonight about ARV, and the obvious issues that it seems to have with SOME kind of overlay. Eva suggested that in a way it's like every session is sort of retro-tasked by the judge for every 'potential target' it is compared to -- so perhaps unintentionally, an ARV session is a multi-tasked session. That's quite a bright idea I'd never thought of. But this made me think about how that might be gotten around. Might there be ways to lessen, even slightly, the bleedthrough issues? Even a tiny % improvement could make a big difference in ARV. Dr. May's research team, dating way back, has had a form of analysis they call "fuzzy set analysis". Also they sometimes have used what they call "Assessment Ratings." These are different kinds of analysis than the rank order. ARV by its nature is using rank order. This page from the LFR / CSL website has a brief description about the three major types of analysis: http://www.lfr.org/csl/practical/analysis.html So I am thinking, that properly setting up a fuzzy set method, could actually prevent any session from being compared directly with a potential target. For example, in fuzzy set, there are many categories. You look at a target, and multiple people assign a value to that target in each category. E.g., a target of a mountain is going to be REAL high on the mountain scale, and if it's in the Alps, REAL low on the desert scale. You get the idea. When the session comes in, the same type of process would be done. This is judging the session based merely on what it is -- not on what it is "compared to or when considering each potential target". When it's all done, one could mathematically just pick the numbers that match best, and go with that. A direct, human-considered evaluation of the session compared to each target would not be in the process. I wonder if this would help. PJ #?57? From: "Eva" Date: Mon Mar 10, ?003 1?:05 am Subject: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- k9caninek9 ARV issues: Well first I figure you could probably task viewers to say the things that will get the computer to give the right answer. But on a larger scale, if this thing is similar to quantum mechanics, do quantum mechanics need human observation to make an effect? My knoweldge of quantum mechanics is quite weak. Or does mechanical analysis still count as analysis or maybe serve as I kind of proxy or extension of human analysis? I'm not sure if that has ever been tested in a real quantum experiment because sooner or later, a human usually has to look at the results to see what happened. It would certainly be nice if removing the human component of analysis coud result in an improvement, even if a small one. Then again there might be contradictory probs with the computer not being as wise at judging as a human would. So even if there is an improvement in overlay, it may be counteracted by other weaknesses. That is even assuming that the effects will accumulate in a logical fashion according to what our intuition thinks is logical. Then again, maybe a computer would be more objective and therefore an even better analyst, LOL! It's an interesting question. -E #?58? Date: Mon Mar 10, ?003 8:47 am Subject: Re: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- pjgaenir > But on a larger scale, if this thing is similar to quantum > mechanics, do quantum mechanics need human observation to > make an effect? Well, if the universe IS consciousness incarnate, then observation or experience drives everything, I suppose. > Then again there might be contradictory probs with the > computer not being as wise at judging as a human would. Well at this point, a human needs to look at the session, and a human needs to look at a potential target. But, the same human does not need to look at both of them, and comparing an eventual math number to each other, vs. carefully comparing a session to a potential target photo, might make a small diff, just in how much consciousness was poured into the process. I guess the bottom line is that the subject could use a whole lot more research, but the money and time and subjects for it are seriously lacking. You know, considering how many trials Greg K does, and how specific he is when he chooses something, and how many people are watching his stuff, if it doesn't pay off for him in the end, I think there is something really, really big, really obvious, that we are entirely missing about the process. PJ #?633 From: "Linda & John Garvey" Date: Wed Mar 1?, ?003 9:54 am Subject: Re: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- linda_g7us As I understand it, this is theory, with some evidence plus countless unanswered questions, but what if a non-human (animal -- chimp, dog, cat, etc.? ) observed it? Have our scientists thought of that? Linda G "The distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one." -- Albert Einstein -- >From: "Eva" > >You got it exactly Karl! It's hard not to eventually have a human >observe the results. Machines take info but then humans look at it. >Would the effect be the same if the human never looked at it? How >would you know if a human never checked it? THen you would have to >program the machine to give some kind of answer that was not an >answer, LOL! >-E > >--- In pjrv...ps.com, Karl Boyken > But does QM demand that a _human_ observe? In other > > words, what constitutes "observation"? Not to be > > putting words in Eva's mouth, but I think that's what > > she was asking. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and ? months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail #?646 From: "Eva" Date: Wed Mar 1?, ?003 8:50 pm Subject: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- k9caninek9 What if a bacteria observed it? If so, do human observations overcome bacterial observations? -E > Linda wrote: > what if a non-human (animal -- chimp, dog, cat, > etc.? ) observed it? Have our scientists thought of that? ------------------------- Moderator's note: And are plants 'stronger' in effect than bacteria; and animals than plants; and humans than animals; and some humans than others? PJ #?660 From: "Eva" Date: Thu Mar 13, ?003 1?:44 am Subject: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- k9caninek9 And why does one answer always equal 100 more questions? ;-? ) -E --- In pjrv...ps.com, "Eva" What if a bacteria observed it? If so, do human observations > overcome bacterial observations? > -E > > > Linda wrote: > > what if a non-human (animal -- chimp, dog, cat, > > etc.? ) observed it? Have our scientists thought of that? > > ------------------------- > Moderator's note: And are plants 'stronger' in effect than bacteria; and animals than plants; and humans than animals; and some humans than others? PJ #?7?4 From: James Phillip Turpin Date: Sat Mar 15, ?003 9:54 pm Subject: Re: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- james_p_turpin In the many-worlds interprestation, it really doesn't matter who or what observes it. An electron could 'observe' another electron by interacting with it. In the Coppenhagen (wave-collapse? ) interpretation, the universe is arbitrarily divided into observers and observables. You could argue all day about who or what are the observers and who or what are the observables, but it misses the point. The point is that the Coppenhagen interpretation is fundamentally philosophicly flawed, but only in such a way that it doesn't really bother physicists for the purposes of most experiments. It is a logicly and philosophicly flawed model that is still quite useful because most scientists can't handle the 'truth' (or better model? ), which is the many-worlds interpretation. In fact, psi work may be the first front where the different interpretations may lead to different, testable predictions. Of course, in the end, some other theory will probably emmerge, but it will probably resemble Everett's many world's theory more than the Coppenhagen wave-collapse theory, IMO. > And why does one answer always equal 100 more questions? ;-? ) > -E #?665 From: "stanley014?0" Date: Thu Mar 13, ?003 10:3? am Subject: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- stanley014?0 --- In pjrv...ps.com, "Eva" What if a bacteria observed it? If so, do human observations > overcome bacterial observations? > -E I personally don't think it's an issue so much of 'observation' as it is of a 'focus of human consciousness'. trypper ------------------------- Moderator's note: So.... would it matter in your theory if the focus were after the fact, in analysis, or during the session, in attempted RI/telepathy? PJ #?678 From: "stanley014?0" Date: Thu Mar 13, ?003 11:?5 pm Subject: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- stanley014?0 > Moderator's note: So.... would it matter in your theory if the > focus were after the fact, in analysis, or during the session, in > attempted RI/telepathy? PJ In my experience, PJ... RI is only done precognitively. That's the only way it can be verified in a scientific manner. Telepathy however is a different story. trypper ---------------------------- Moderator's note: Who said anything about scientific? PJ #?680 From: "stanley014?0" Date: Fri Mar 14, ?003 9:?7 am Subject: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- stanley014?0 > Moderator's note: Who said anything about scientific? PJ Well ...regardless of the term, I've always been skeptical of an after the fact focus because of the human tendency to mold facts to fit a situation. If we say something detailed and specific is *going* to happen and then we stand back and actually watch it happen, then to me it proves itself. If we look back, it's easier to fit the facts into the situation and justify and manipulate the data to meet our own personal qualifications. I wasn't willing to give myself that much room to play mental games with myself. Remote viewing can lend itself to that by focusing on describing rather than naming things. I mean, particular adjectives can describe a multitude of objects and although it is more accurate way to accumulate data when one starts out especially, it can also allow room for self deception in a way.. I think. I don't know.. trypper #?691 From: "Eva" Date: Fri Mar 14, ?003 11:?5 am Subject: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- k9caninek9 Just because something is difficult to test for does not mean it doesn't exist. It just means it's difficult to test for and so we don't know. -E > In my experience, PJ... RI is only done precognitively. That's the > only way it can be verified in a scientific manner. Telepathy > however is a different story. #?693 From: Karl Boyken Just because something is difficult to test for does not mean it > doesn't exist. It just means it's difficult to test for and so we > don't know. > -E -- Karl Boyken kboyken...t http://soli.inav.net/~kboyken/ We dance 'round in a ring and suppose, while the Secret sits in the middle and knows. --Robert Frost #?700 From: "Eva" Date: Fri Mar 14, ?003 9:03 pm Subject: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- k9caninek9 There is a way to test for it in RV. Do a number of sessions. Task half of them normally and analyze them normally. The other half, task normally, analyze normally, and then reanalyze using a different target. THen score them all against the tasked target. Sessions that have been double analyzed would theoretically be diluted and the scores should be a bit lower. It's not rocket science, but it does require the whole scientific setup and lots of sessions and work. -E > Karl wrote: > If we have two different concepts but no functional way > of distinguishing between them, then in practical terms, > at least, the two concepts are actually equivalent. ---------------------------- Moderator's note: Well what if the ability to retask had LIMITS based on the free will of the individual doing the session? What if, for example, the individual might tend to choose data and ways of communicating it that best matched both targets, but could not necessarily be influenced at all toward making some data "wrong" or picking up non-primary-target info? I don't think it necessarily has to be one extreme or the other, if this is possible. PJ #?703 From: "Eva" Date: Sat Mar 15, ?003 1:45 am Subject: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- k9caninek9 True, it's not the be all and end all of tests. But Karl was saying it would be a prob if it can't be tested and off the top of my head, I felt there might be some ways around the prob of testing. I do expect the subconscious to try to match both targets at once, but in me experience that tends to dilute the results a bit, especially if that targets are very different. Sometimes it's enough that a word might be considered almost but not quite good enough to get a score of 'correct.' Perhaps it will be too symbolic or some such. ANother option is to for the experimental sessions (ie the reanalyzed ones? ) to be reanalyzed many times against many diff targets in an attempt to really concentrate the effect. The subconscious mind might be hard pressed to come up with good data that describes 5 targets at once, LOL! -E > Moderator's note: Well what if the ability to retask had LIMITS > based on the free will of the individual doing the session? What if, > for example, the individual might tend to choose data and ways of > communicating it that best matched both targets, but could not > necessarily be influenced at all toward making some data "wrong" or > picking up non-primary-target info? I don't think it necessarily has > to be one extreme or the other, if this is possible. PJ #?707 From: Bill Pendragon Date: Sat Mar 15, ?003 4:?4 am Subject: Re: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- docsavagebill Hi Eva, Well here is another idea. Get a bunch of sessions from somewhere and just apply them blind to some new ARV targets and see if you beat chance? Better yet do it on someone with a positive ARV record and only use his bad sessions..see if the hit rate now beats chance, when retasked to new ones? presumably if they were bad sessions from a good ARVer they might have been waiting around for your retasking! Awww I love this kind of thinking.. hee hee. I through all my old bad ARV sessions away..anyone got a bunch of bad ARV they want to send me? I'll split the profits. Bill ------------------------- Moderator's note: You THREW a session AWAY?!?! {sound of PJ choking} WHY would any experimentalist DO this? You the Ph.D. and everything! Don'tcha know half the point of keeping a lab/notebook is to keep EVERYthing? Do you mean to tell me you don't learn anything from past sessions? You just do as many as you can, hoping for quantity to matter more than introspection or something? ;-? ) PJ #?7?0 From: "Eva" Date: Sat Mar 15, ?003 8:54 pm Subject: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- k9caninek9 The only prob is those ARV sessions may have been bad BECAUSE you retasked them later. In which case the experiment screwed up you original attempt at ARV. -E > --- Bill Pendragon I through all my old > bad ARV sessions away..anyone got a bunch of bad ARV > they want to send me? I'll split the profits. ---------------------- Moderator's note: The dilemma of 'standing in your own shade' concerning researching this stuff is just mind boggling.... PJ #?7?5 From: Bill Pendragon Date: Sat Mar 15, ?003 11:11 pm Subject: Re: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- docsavagebill Hi Eva, That may have originally caused problems, but I don't see how that matters in the current experiment..it could only help IMO. Bill > The only prob is those ARV sessions may have been bad BECAUSE you > retasked them later. In which case the experiment screwed up you > original attempt at ARV. E #?73? From: "Eva" Date: Sun Mar 16, ?003 3:?0 pm Subject: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- k9caninek9 I'm not following your reasoning. Are you saying that because sessions are bad on one target, they must be good on another target? Maybe they just are/were/will be bad becasue you are/were/will be restasking them to a diff target? Probs from before will still hold now if you plan to do the exact same thing again. -E > Bill Pendragon That may have originally caused problems, but I don't > see how that matters in the current experiment..it > could only help IMO. > > > The only prob is those ARV sessions may have been bad BECAUSE you > > retasked them later. In which case the experiment screwed up you > > original attempt at ARV. E #?697 From: "stanley014?0" Date: Fri Mar 14, ?003 1:?5 pm Subject: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- stanley014?0 Oh, I agree completely E. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying I cannot state that I know for a fact that it exists. However, I do know for a fact that precognitive RI exists. trypper > Just because something is difficult to test for does not mean it > doesn't exist. It just means it's difficult to test for and so we > don't know. > -E #?650 From: Benton Bogle Date: Thu Mar 13, ?003 8:?? am Subject: RE: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- waterway_?1 > What if a bacteria observed it? If so, do human observations > overcome bacterial observations? -E I have not gone back and read all the posts in this thread thoroughly (ie, I am about to say something stupid and off the mark? ), but if you are talking about the QM phenomenon of observing the qualities of a particle/wave, then the best way I have to remember this concept is to relate it to an Austin Powers/ Mike Myers movie. In these Austin Powers movies, you have Mike Myers. Now as the movie goes on, you know that he is up there on the screen, and he may be Austin Powers, he may be Fat Bastard, he may be Goldmember, he may be Dr. Evil, he may be Dr. Strangelove... oh wait, different movie with an actor playing multiple parts. Anyway, back to Mike Myers, you know he's up there on the screen in every scene of the movie. And when you see him as Dr. Evil, he can no longer be, at that moment, during that observation, Fat Bastard or Goldmember or whoever else. Now later, when you see him as Goldmember, he cannot be also Dr. Evil, though in some other time/place, he is in fact Dr. Evil if you observe him as that. It doesn't matter if a computer makes the observation, or a mouse, or an amoeba I don't know why they don't teach this is advanced physics courses at all the major universities? Quite simple really. LOL!!! #?7?? From: James Phillip Turpin Date: Sat Mar 15, ?003 9:39 pm Subject: RE: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- james_p_turpin > In these Austin Powers movies, you have Mike Myers. [snip] > I don't know why they don't teach this is advanced physics courses at all > the major universities? Quite simple really. LOL!!! I once had a professor who gave a lecture in a quantum compution class while wearing an ape mask. #?7?7 From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Date: Sun Mar 16, ?003 10:30 am Subject: Re: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- hstearnsjr > In the many-worlds interprestation, it really doesn't matter who or what > observes it. An electron could 'observe' another electron by interacting > with it. In the Coppenhagen (wave-collapse? ) interpretation, the universe > is arbitrarily divided into observers and observables. You could argue > all day about who or what are the observers and who or what are the > observables, but it misses the point. While these interpretations may be useful, the actual nature of reality is spelled out fairly completely and technically in the books "The Nature of Personal Reality" and "The Unknown Reality" by Jane Roberts (Seth? ), and also from many other sources (If you're willing to wade through such an enormous quantity of heavy information? ). Furthermore, all the experiments that I am aware of back up this information. A clear and internally consistent model emerges. Most physicists seem to be stuck in a quagmire of invalid assumptions, but that's understandable, because the actual nature of things is so fantastic. A being inside a simulation may have no notion about how the machinery running the show works (Nor does she need to in most cases -- when somebody's playing a game they generally don't want to be bothered by the details of how it works, those on this list excepted, and it's an intrusion to try to explain that-- don't get upset at the debunkers, they're just telling you to buzz-off and let them enjoy the game. A few summary points; 1. We each get our own private reality, down to the last grain of sand on the beach (which won't even exist until it enters our perceptual field? ). This point is emphasized vehemently over and over again to try and drum this concept into our heads, which seem to be exceptionally resistant to the idea. ( I like to say "we each get our own private holodeck".? ) There can be many people playing a similar game (Earth 3-d space-time -- one of the favorites according to Robert Monroe? ), but each has their own instance of it that is modifiable to suit (but if you modify it too much, you start to see "anomalies"? ). ?. There is time "out there", the main" simulation computer" has a time, which is "real time". We have time but it's "game time". If we put the simulation on "hold", our time stops whilst real time continues. We also have the capacity, if we don't like an outcome, for example, to stop the game, back up the clock, take a different action and resume from there (pseudo backward causality? ). 3. The outcomes of ALL experiments are exactly what we want them to be on some level (not necessarily conscious? ). (Thus the scientific method invalidates itself !? ) 4. Everything is a "thought". All thoughts think. You are a thought that thinks. Most thoughts are not self-aware. All thoughts are constantly forming links to others like them forming constantly greater assemblies, linked together in a vast array of "threads", as P.J. so eloquently expressed Mar. 14. 5. There is no "assertion", only attraction. A thought will only aggregate with (or we will experience, in our case? ) things that are similar enough to form these links. An analogy is that these threads are just that-- we can pull on them, but pushing is ineffective. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona #?738 From: "Linda & John Garvey" Date: Mon Mar 17, ?003 1:31 pm Subject: Re: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- linda_g7us >And why does one answer always equal 100 more questions? ;-? ) >-E ONLY 100 unanswered questions left...??! Wow, we are doing good, then! ;-? ) Linda G "The distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one." -- Albert Einstein -- #?746 From: "Eva" Date: Tue Mar 18, ?003 11:35 am Subject: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- k9caninek9 No, it's 100 MORE questions on top of the old ones, LOL! -E > "Linda & John Garvey" ONLY 100 unanswered questions left...??! > Wow, we are doing good, then! ;-? ) #?774 From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m Date: Fri Mar ?1, ?003 4:14 pm Subject: Re: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- maliolana The philosophical question I was tasked with in numerous Philosophy classes was..."If a tree falls in the woods...does it make a sound...if no one is around to hear it"...just a fine point...but one of my favorite...... another is..."Is a red shirt still red ...in a dark closet?" > Yeah but how did they know that it didn't occur if they didn't > look at the output to find out if it occured? -E #?787 From: Bill Pendragon Date: Sat Mar ??, ?003 10:36 pm Subject: Re: Re: QM cats and SQUIDS docsavagebill Hi Dawna, Below is a Scientific American story on a new experiment testing the Quantum Cat experiment.. and thank Gawd ..they have used an electric current to sub for the poor tortured cat previously used in thought experiments..They also point out why whole cats can't presently be used.. "information leaks" destroy the superposition of deadcat/live cat and collapse us into one or other universe..G http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0009C400- BED3-1C73-9B81809EC588EF?1&pageNumber=1&catID=? Getting back to RV what does this say about RV states? I'm just not sure.. RV seems to tap the forbidden QM information ( in the future for instance? ) so breaks QM rules.. I don't think QM is advanced enough for RV. Hugs, Bill #?615 From: Bill Pendragon Date: Tue Mar 11, ?003 1:15 pm Subject: Re: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- docsavagebill Hi Eva, QM does need human observation to make a "real" effect . A QM effect that is not observed can simply be said to not exist until observed. This brings up the old dead cat /live cat mental experiment of Heisenburg. I will change it to flys because I love cats. A poison is realeased by a QM trigger that will kill the fly in a box ( the QM trigger is some true QM event like radioactive decay? )such that there is a 50% chance the poison will be released during the experiment, but all the information whether the poison is released and kills the fly is isolated from thehuman observers.. The observers can only conclude that the fly has become part of a 50% dead/live QM wave function. No fly dies or lives for sure until the box is opened. The easiest way to look at this ( IMO? ) is the multi universe form of QM. In this manner ..the experiment created two parallel universes one with live flys and one with dead flys in addition to ours which they are neither dead or alive. As soon as we look we enter one of those other universes either the dead fly or live fly universe. Note this is only true about things in the future that are not yet finalized. RV of known things should not act quite this way. That's why I say the model is not a perfect fit. Rob A. also says that future viewing is the only type of viewing that is subject to this kind of session stacking ..that he is aware of. But Pru does alot of future viewing for her customers. Best Regards, Bill #?616 From: Karl Boyken Hi Eva, > > QM does need human observation to make a "real" effect > . A QM effect that is not observed can simply be said > to not exist until observed. This brings up the old > dead cat /live cat mental experiment of Heisenburg. I > will change it to flys because I love cats. A poison > is realeased by a QM trigger that will kill the fly in > a box ( the QM trigger is some true QM event like > radioactive decay? )such that there is a 50% chance the > poison will be released during the experiment, but all > the information whether the poison is released and > kills the fly is isolated from thehuman observers.. > The observers can only conclude that the fly has > become part of a 50% dead/live QM wave function. No > fly dies or lives for sure until the box is opened. > > The easiest way to look at this ( IMO? ) is the multi > universe form of QM. In this manner ..the experiment > created two parallel universes one with live flys and > one with dead flys in addition to ours which they are > neither dead or alive. As soon as we look we enter one > of those other universes either the dead fly or live > fly universe. Note this is only true about things in > the future that are not yet finalized. RV of known > things should not act quite this way. That's why I say > the model is not a perfect fit. Rob A. also says that > future viewing is the only type of viewing that is > subject to this kind of session stacking ..that he is > aware of. But Pru does alot of future viewing for her > customers. > > Best Regards, > > Bill -- Karl Boyken kboyken...t http://soli.inav.net/~kboyken/ We dance 'round in a ring and suppose, while the Secret sits in the middle and knows. --Robert Frost #?6?5 From: "Eva" Date: Tue Mar 11, ?003 7:53 pm Subject: Re: ARV evaluation thoughts -- k9caninek9 You got it exactly Karl! It's hard not to eventually have a human observe the results. Machines take info but then humans look at it. Would the effect be the same if the human never looked at it? How would you know if a human never checked it? THen you would have to program the machine to give some kind of answer that was not an answer, LOL! -E --- In pjrv...ps.com, Karl Boyken But does QM demand that a _human_ observe? In other > words, what constitutes "observation"? Not to be > putting words in Eva's mouth, but I think that's what > she was asking. #?63? From: Karl Boyken You got it exactly Karl! It's hard not to eventually have a human > observe the results. Machines take info but then humans look at it. > Would the effect be the same if the human never looked at it? How > would you know if a human never checked it? THen you would have to > program the machine to give some kind of answer that was not an > answer, LOL! > -E -- Karl Boyken kboyken...t http://soli.inav.net/~kboyken/ We dance 'round in a ring and suppose, while the Secret sits in the middle and knows. --Robert Frost

// end archive

Top of Page

Remote Viewing info page spacer

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives


Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info