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 : 3332-3332 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3332?)
14:57:16
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#3332

From: Karl Boyken Date: Thu Jun 26, 2003 11:11 am Subject: Notes from a talk by Marilyn Schlitz on healing kboyken Members of the Monroe Institute receive a tape each quarter, and last year one of the tapes was a talk by Marilyn Schlitz, Director of Research at the Institute of Noetic Sciences. She gave her talk, The Power of Intention in Healing: A Research Overview, at the March 2003 Professional Seminar at the Monroe Institute. I thought some of us might be interested, so I've been listening to the tape and taking notes. I'm also looking up references to the studies Schlitz cites, and am including them. I'm halfway through. The technical term Schlitz uses for what we might call remote influence or remote healing is distant mental influence on living systems--DMILS, for short. She says that of more than 150 studies into DMILS, about half show high statistical significance. The first work Schlitz discusses is that of Jeff Levin, a sociological epidemiologist who has done research on the effect of religious or spiritual practice on health outcomes, and on the effect of love on health outcome. Levin found that patients who report feeling love from others have a better outcome than those who don't. A couple of his papers: Jeffrey S. Levin. (1985). Religion and Health in Mexican Americans. Journal of Religion and Health 24:60-69. Jeff Levin. (2000). A Prolegomenon to an Epidemiology of Love: Theory, Measurement, and Health Outcomes. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 19:117-136. Schlitz mentioned her work on mice in Durham, North Carolina around 1980, but didn't go into detail. She said she no longer does research on animals unless they sign a consent form. ;) Schlitz, M. (1982). PK on living systems: Further studies with anesthetized mice. Journal of Parapsychology, 46: 51-52. Schlitz next mentioned her work with William Braud at the Mind Science Foundation in San Antonio, Texas. Their study found a significant effect from distant healers on galvanic skin response. Their work was replicated in Germany, Scotland and a couple of labs in the US. Schlitz, MJ. & Braud, WG. (1997). Distant intentionality and healing: Assessing the evidence. Alternative Therapies. 3(6), 62-73. Schlitz talked about her work on remote staring with Ed May and Stephen Laberge at the Cognitive Sciences Lab at Science Applications International Corporation, in association with the Psychology Deparment at Stanford. Joe McMoneagle was one of the participants. She conducted two studies there, and both produced significant results. Schlitz, M. & LaBerge, S. (1997). Covert observation increases skin conductance in subjects unaware of when they are being observed: A replication. Journal of Parapsychology. 61, 185-196 She discussed how Richard Wiseman, a Ph. D. in psychology and a professional magician, tried to replicate the results of her staring research, at the University of Herefordshire, but got only chance results. So in 1997, she and Wiseman ran identical experiments in his lab, the only difference being whether Schlitz or Wiseman were conducting them. When Schlitz ran the experiments, the results were statistically significant; when Wiseman ran them, the results were no better than chance. They repeated the experiments at IONS, and got the same outcome. Wiseman, R. & Schlitz, M. (1997). Experimenter effects and the remote detection of staring. Journal of Parapsychology. 61,197-207. Next, Schlitz talked about clinical research. First, she mentioned the work of Randolph Byrd at the San Francisco General Medical Center. Byrd studied the effects of intercessory prayer by fundamentalist Christians, and he found that those patients who were prayed for had better outcomes. Randolph C. Byrd, M.D., Southern Medical Journal 1988 Jul; 81(7): 826-9 Schlitz then discussed a study on hernia surgery patients by Zev Bentwich in Israel in 1994. The patients were randomly selected to receive distant healing, to do guided imagery, or to be in a control group. The ones who received distant healing had the best outcome. Bentwich Z, Kreitler S. Psychological determinants of recovery from hernia operations. Paper presented at Dead Sea Conference; June 1994; Tiberias, Israel. The last work Schlitz cites on the first side of the tape are the studies Elizabeth Targ and others conducted on AIDS and distant healing, at Cal Pacific Medical Center. Schlitz said this is the most well-respected and widely cited work to date. Two studies were run, and both showed significantly better outcomes for AIDS patients who received distant healing. Sicher F, Targ E, Moore D, Smith HS. A randomized double-blind study of the effect of distant healing in a population with advanced AIDS--report of a small-scale study. West J Med 1998; 169:356-363. -- Karl Boyken kboyken...net http://www.avalon.net/~kboyken/ We dance 'round in a ring and suppose, while the Secret sits in the middle and knows. --Robert Frost ----------------------- Thanks Karl. That was interesting and I doubt most of us would have known about that if you hadn't reviewed it. PJ pjrv : Messages : 3347-3429 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3347?)
15:07:53
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#3347

From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Date: Thu Jun 26, 2003 5:10 pm Subject: Re: Notes from a talk by Marilyn Schlitz on healing hstearnsjr Karl Boyken wrote: > Members of the Monroe Institute receive a tape each quarter, and last > year one > of the tapes was a talk by Marilyn Schlitz, Hi, I have that tape too. Another point she made was that experimenters get the results they expect on some level. I was happy to hear verification of what other metaphysical teachers have explained about the nature of reality creation, in fact, they say that that is always the case, even in the physical sciences. My personal opinion, based on that, and lots of other information, is that the scientific method has invalidated itself. Just Dean Radin's paper on retro-causality alone is enough to invalidate it, but given that RV exists too, it's not possible to have a blind or double blind experiment, because the subconscious always knows the information that is supposedly blind. Doing a well designed double-blind experiment at least gives the debunkers less to complain about :-) . Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona Reply | Forward

#3370

From: Karl Boyken Date: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:39 pm Subject: Re: Notes from a talk by Marilyn Schlitz on healing kboyken One thing that was interesting to me was the question of whether decision augmentation theory applies to distant healing. If so, then if you do successfully heal someone, you may have done it at the expense of someone else's health. That would imply a few ethical/moral issues. Karl -------------------- Er... can you expand a little on exactly what you mean here? PJ Reply | Forward

#3395

From: Karl Boyken Date: Sat Jun 28, 2003 1:45 am Subject: Re: Notes from a talk by Marilyn Schlitz on healing kboyken > Er... can you expand a little on exactly what you mean here? PJ Okay, and I'm probably exposing my own ignorance of DAT, but as I understand it, according to DAT, when you do psi, you're really choosing a subset of a run in which the occurrence of the outcome you're looking for is greater than chance, and rejecting runs in which the occurrence of the outcome is less than chance. So, even though you exhibit successful psi, the overall odds of the outcome happening haven't changed. So, if that's DAT, then if it applies to healing, you could view healing as sort of "stealing" runs of healthful outcome from the huge oceanic pool of all outcomes, which means that some poor soul out there who receives no healing is left holding the bag of less healthful outcomes, so that the overall chance of a healthful outcome doesn't change. Or am I wrong? Karl -- Karl Boyken mailto:kboyken...net http://www.avalon.net/~kboyken ------------------------- Karl, I don't know if you're wrong, but that's weird. :-) Are you suggesting there is a finite quantity of health available in this world, and that if you use your "intent" to impel to health, you are stealing the health away from some other poor soul because now there "isn't enough health to go around??" I don't believe that even SEEMINGLY finite things, such as money, are really so. Let alone things which are individual experience and certainly not regulated by any law of distribution. Before you give the science guys who wrote the DAT papers sneezing fits, back up and look at the basics of the theory and why it applies to their example but not to health I'd imagine. I translate like this (but I'm not the scientist!): Decision Augmentation Theory 1. A person making a decision may have psi operating, and this may contribute information to aid in the decision making. 2. As a result, they might make different decisions than someone or something (such as a computer) without that additional information gleaned via psi. 3. Remote viewing trials require in most cases a human's subjective decision (such as matching a session to one of five 'potential' targets). The psi of the judge may contribute positively or negatively (psi-missing is as common as psi-hitting) to the accuracy of their judging. 4. Given the above, this suggests that a psychic collecting data on something, aided by another person utilizing psi to evaluate their data, may result in a sort of "cumulation" of psi you might say--possibly, an even better result. As a side note, it also suggests that a myriad of tiny decisions made by scientists when studying psi might predispose their results to be more positive or negative, based on their own psi/psi-missing. It is no secret that scientists in psi science often get what they expect no matter how well controlled the experience, not to mention the "sheep and goats" tendency of viewers to echo the data (or success) of those they most identify with (even if that means being wrong). Now the rest: 5. Say you want to influence a 'random number generator' to bring up 1s more than 0s. The generator begins processing at the moment a button is pushed. DAT would suggest the psi of the person pushing the button may contribute to their ability to push the button at a moment which generates a positive (or negative, in psi-missing) outcome. This may exceed chance, when measured. So it may look like the person is 'influencing' (via TK) the machine to generate more 1s, for example. But in reality, they may be having zero effect on the generation of numbers. It may be just as random as ever. But they may simply be choosing the precise moment to push the button so that out of the overall random pattern, they are only sampling the little sections that just happen to have more 1s (other sections would have more 0s--the overall pattern is random). So you are correct in that the statistical odds (the random chance of those numbers being generated) may not have changed. I have no idea how you could apply this concept to healing. Illness is not programmed into a computer for outcome. And even if it was, it would be per-person surely, and so using psi to better the outcome for health should not reflect on anybody else. You are saying that the 'statistics' of how many people die, for example, would not change, so if someone in the red box moved to blue, then someone in the blue box would have to move to red, to keep those stats the same. But this is not logical, Karl. SOCIAL statistics are merely REFLECTIONS of human decisions. They are not the same as PROGRAMMED statistics, such as how a random number generator is a machine/software designed to ensure a certain pattern. You are taking some of the terms/concepts they are using based on the work with something like decoy-rank-analysis and RNG-sampling, and trying to apply it to something else. This concept could only be applied to health, if you have 10 people and you're going to shoot one of them and you make them draw straws. LOL. When it comes to health in general, I don't think it can be applied to that situation. The science -- 5 decoys and choose one, RNG with 2 options so choose one, that is *forced choice*. Life, like an RV session, is "free response." :-) PJ Reply | Forward

#3429

From: Karl Boyken Date: Sun Jun 29, 2003 10:48 am Subject: Re: Notes from a talk by Marilyn Schlitz on healing kboyken Thanks for the info on DAT. What you wrote here is what I'm talking about: > But in reality, they may be having zero effect on the generation of > numbers. It may be just as random as ever. But they may simply be > choosing the precise moment to push the button so that out of the > overall random pattern, they are only sampling the little sections > that just happen to have more 1s (other sections would have more > 0s--the overall pattern is random). > So you are correct in that the statistical odds (the random chance of > those numbers being generated) may not have changed. If in reality, a healer has zero effect on the outcome of the patient, and if a healer does not alter the statistical odds of a successful outcome, then what is the healer doing? Not healing, not in any sense of the word I'd use. > I have no idea how you could apply this concept to healing. Illness > is not programmed into a computer for outcome. And even if it was, > it would be per-person surely, and so using psi to better the outcome > for health should not reflect on anybody else. Good points. A reductionist would surely argue with you about the computerized-outcome point. But I'm not a reductionist. There's something a little self-contradictory to me in the idea that using psi (which to me seems to be associated with the idea that we're all interconnected) would not reflect on anybody else (which implies there's no connection among people). > You are saying that the 'statistics' of how many people die, for > example, would not change, so if someone in the red box moved to > blue, then someone in the blue box would have to move to red, to keep > those stats the same. But this is not logical, Karl. SOCIAL > statistics are merely REFLECTIONS of human decisions. They are not > the same as PROGRAMMED statistics, such as how a random number > generator is a machine/software designed to ensure a certain pattern. > You are taking some of the terms/concepts they are using based on the > work with something like decoy-rank-analysis and RNG-sampling, and > trying to apply it to something else. True, true. I raised the whole point of DAT and healing because Schlitz mentioned it in her talk. Apparently, researchers have considered the question. It would be interesting to hear what Ed May has to say about it, since she mentioned him. > This concept could only be applied to health, if you have 10 people > and you're going to shoot one of them and you make them draw straws. > LOL. When it comes to health in general, I don't think it can be > applied to that situation. Have you been in a hospital lately??? ;) > The science -- 5 decoys and choose one, RNG with 2 options so choose > one, that is *forced choice*. Life, like an RV session, is "free > response." :-) PJ Not according to my wife! ;) Karl

// 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