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 : 2209-2277 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/2209?)
23:46:56
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#2209

From: "Scott Ellis " Date: Tue Feb 4, 2003 5:25 pm Subject: Remote Influencing Experiment scottrver Hi All, So I've come up with an idea for measuring remote influencing. Please respond if you might be interested in participating or if you have suggestions for improvement. The protocol simply adds onto an ARV experiment/RV judged against decoys type protocol. Instead of simply viewing a feedback photo the viewer would additionally try to remote influence their own original RV session, back in time. Success would be indicated by a higher than normal hit rate with lower than normal displacement. Any takers/thoughts? Scott Reply | Forward

#2222

From: "stanley01420 " Date: Wed Feb 5, 2003 7:18 am Subject: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment stanley01420 --- In pjrv...oups.com, "Scott Ellis " Hi All, > > So I've come up with an idea for measuring remote influencing. Please > respond if you might be interested in participating or if you have > suggestions for improvement. > > The protocol simply adds onto an ARV experiment/RV judged against > decoys type protocol. Instead of simply viewing a feedback photo the > viewer would additionally try to remote influence their own original > RV session, back in time. Success would be indicated by a higher than > normal hit rate with lower than normal displacement. > > Any takers/thoughts? > > > Scott With me it's part of a *precognitive* process. I don't really get the concept of going back in time or how one gets any proof or actual feedback that way. trypper Reply | Forward

#2226

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Wed Feb 5, 2003 8:13 pm Subject: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment docsavagebill Hi Scott, Actually Marty attempted that for awhile in his experiments..but we did not have a uniform RI method at that time..and Lyn did not want to publicize his. So people did not report much success. Now Rob Abbott told me he has a way to RI himself dowsing back in time. ( I.E make yourself sway right to indicate yes and sway left to indicate No etc back thru time when you want to make a decision). Rob says that works well ..but he only teaches it at his level three class and I've only gone thru level II.. sigh. I did my own versions of this for awhile and it worked gangbusters for about 20 trials then like almost every other ARV protocol it seemed to lose its power. Best Regards, Bill --- "Scott Ellis " wrote: > Hi All, > > So I've come up with an idea for measuring remote > influencing. Please > respond if you might be interested in participating > or if you have > suggestions for improvement. > > The protocol simply adds onto an ARV experiment/RV > judged against > decoys type protocol. Instead of simply viewing a > feedback photo the > viewer would additionally try to remote influence > their own original > RV session, back in time. Success would be > indicated by a higher than > normal hit rate with lower than normal displacement. > > Any takers/thoughts? > > > Scott > > > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com Reply | Forward

#2234

From: greenmn900... Date: Wed Feb 5, 2003 6:51 pm Subject: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment greenmn900... Scott, You wrote: "The protocol simply adds onto an ARV experiment/RV judged against decoys type protocol. Instead of simply viewing a feedback photo the viewer would additionally try to remote influence their own original RV session, back in time. Success would be indicated by a higher than normal hit rate with lower than normal displacement." Good idea. I've read of similiar attempts to use the feedback loop to increase results. I think it was Lyn that talked about jumping and down, screaming, etc. at the time of feedback to make that moment "stand out" in time. I actually tried it for 20 sessions in a row. But my results seemed to stay about the same - and I felt ridiculous - so I stopped, lol. If I had done more trials I may have seen an effect though, who knows? But getting back to your idea: The Rvers could simply try to select elements of the target and consciously send them back through time to themselves in the past. That would be one way RI. Or they could do a full RI session at feedback and really try to contact their own minds in the past and then try to implant images from the target pictures. I'd think in an RV session a person would be especially open to RI, even more so if it was coming from their own mind! But I believe to be valid, the control group would have to be comprised of the same RVers that make up the experimental group to compensate for variations in natural talent, capability, experience, etc., right? Further, wouldn't the exact same target need to be RVed in the control run by the exact same Rver that worked it previously in the experimental run to rule out differences arising from variations in target preferences in each RVer and variations in target entropy (which studies suggest is important)? If it's an ARV type experiment, you would have the additional problems of target bandwidth in the control versus the experimental runs. In other words, in each run, do the 2 possible targets have the exact same degree of sameness/differentness as they did in the experimental run? Then is each judge presented with 2 possible targets that always have the same degree of sameness/differentness? Also, it would be neccassary to be sure that each session is done under exactly the same geomagnetic flux, solar wind speed, and local apparent sidereal time conditions in both the control and the experimental group - since there's some emerging evidence that suggests these factors play a critical role in the degree of success RVers have (or don't have, lol) Then all of these factors would play a part in the judging protocol as well. The judging should also take place under similiar conditions each time (geo. flux, LST, etc.) since we don't know how much of the judging process is mediated by psi. Except it would probably be neccessary to make sure that no judge attempts to match the same target for the control group as s/he did for the experimental group as that could cause expectation problems - especially since the same RVer would be working the same target a second time. the judge wpould automatically be looking for similiar sketches, similiar wording, etc. as the first time around. This would present a problem because we still have to make sure it's done under double blind conditions. That would require a neat bit of protocol set up to do that! Then, because each RVer would be remote viewing the same target twice (once in the experimental run and then again in the control run), you'd have to duplicate the whole experiment again, only this time switching the order. Because the RVer would have some familiarity with the target the second time around. If in the first trial, you did the experimental run first and control run second; this time you'd have to switch it around and do the control run first and the experimental run second. And doing 2 trials and trying to use them both to get meaningful statistics from, causes more problems with target bandwidth. You would have to make absolutely sure that each target in the entire ARV experiment had the exact same degree of sameness/differentness from each other in each trial. Otherwise, they couldn't be compared fairly. You couldn't be sure that the judges, who are matching session results to targets, are faced each time with a task of the same difficulty as the last set of session results and targets they examined. This part would be *very* difficult to ensure. What seems like the relatively simple job of target selection becomes a damned nightmare! Also, because the RVers would be doing the same target twice, this could ruin the double blind set up. So you would need to throw in some totally meaningless targets between each run and again between each trial to keep the RVers truly blind, right? And that process would also have to totally randomized so that the experimenters running the whole show are also kept in the blind - otherwise you don't have a double blind and the results would then be meaningless. There's a million issues to consider in setting up any kind of RV experiment. I don't think I'd try it with ARV though, for sure! It seems to me that ARV would be much more difficult to set up properly than standard RV and have many more issues to deal with, especially when trying to test for an effect of RI induced at feedback. For one thing, you have judges who are matching session data to 2 possible targets, throwing in another level and another set of circumstances which must be tightly controlled and which also gives the whole experiment another layer in which human error can occur. If the overall experiment shows no RI effect, was it because the RI didn't work or because the judges weren't doing a good job for some reason? Maybe they just got tired by the time the second or third trials were done. Myabe they just got bored looking at the same style of sketching and writing from the same RVers. In an ARV trial all the judges *should* have the same degree of experience dealing with psi (perhaps none would be best) but even issues like the artistic background of one judge versus another might make a big difference as could backgrounds in psychology, I'd think. And since ARV is linked to an event in the real world, we then have to deal with all kinds of unforseen circumstances there at that level. What if, for some reason, the event that all the ARV sessions are linked to just never happens at all? lol!! I sure wouldn't want to be the one to set this up! Although I think some of the difficulties I described could be gotten around by having a large number of RVers and/or a large number of trials. That might lessen the importance of some of those factors on the eventual statistics. I'm no scientist, and the more I think about it, the more I realize just how hard a research parapsychologist's job is. It seems like the considerations and detail issues they have to account for and deal with are just mountainous! So, I don't know, these are just some things to think about... Best Regards, Don [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#2237

From: "Scott Ellis " Date: Fri Feb 7, 2003 12:00 am Subject: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment scottrver Hi Don, It's not quite necessary to go to the lengths you mentioned, as those factors in trying to create a level playing field can be minimized by simply having enough trials. It's easy to incorporate a control into the experiment and intermix sessions where the viewer will randomly be instructed to perform RI vs simply receiving feedback. I have a CSL target pool database courtesy of James Spottiswoode and Ed May that was created with target bandwidth, etc., in mind. Also, there really isn't any significant difference between ARV and RV judged against decoys when you think about it. In both cases the session is being judged against several target possibilities. The only difference is that the RV target is generally chosen at random whereas the ARV target is determined by some future event. If RI can be applied in the scenario I've outlined with a fraction of the success claimed by Lyn B., the effect size would be reasonably significant and far outweigh the other factors. If it's not significant enough then RI probably doesn't work in that scenario. It may actually be desirable to have a variety of RI methodologies employed to increase the likelihood that one of the RIers will be successful. Bill mentioned that Marty tried something similar without success, however it sounded like there was too much variability in his protocol to measure whether or not there was an effect. Scott Reply | Forward

#2255

From: "stanley01420 " Date: Sun Feb 9, 2003 11:16 am Subject: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment stanley01420 --- In pjrv...oups.com, "Scott Ellis " Hi All, > > So I've come up with an idea for measuring remote influencing. Please > respond if you might be interested in participating or if you have > suggestions for improvement. > Success would be indicated by a higher than > normal hit rate with lower than normal displacement. Scott, How can you use this as an indication of success? How do you know it's not a placebo effect? I don't understand how you can conduct a legitimate experiment with such a vague indicator of the success rate. trypper Reply | Forward

#2258

From: "Scott Ellis " Date: Sun Feb 9, 2003 9:30 pm Subject: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment scottrver Hi trypper, > > How can you use this as an indication of success? How do you > know it's not a placebo effect? Some sessions are randomly assigned to have RI applied while the others don't. The viewer has no knowledge - at least nonprecognitive - of whether or not RI will be applied to the RV/ARV session they are conducting. > > I don't understand how you can conduct a legitimate experiment > with such a vague indicator of the success rate. You calculate a different psi effect size for the control vs. the RI'd sessions and see if the difference is statistically significant. ----------- Glyn, The idea for applying RI on one's self back in time came from Lyn Buchanan's claim of having done so on himself with success. (see Lyn's Q&As at www.psiquest.net, click on who we are.) I personally have no idea as to the validity but would like to test it and if it holds then apply it on an ongoing basis for myself. There's plenty of room in my life for decision improvement. Scott Reply | Forward

#2263

From: "Glyn" Date: Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:40 am Subject: RE: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment gebega Hi Scott, > The idea for applying RI on one's self back in time came from Lyn > Buchanan's claim of having done so on himself with success. (see Lyn's > Q&As at www.psiquest.net, click on who we are.) I personally have no > idea as to the validity but would like to test it and if it holds then > apply it on an ongoing basis for myself. There's plenty of room in my > life for decision improvement. Better to try than not. Experimentation is everything. If you want any more volunteers then count me in :-) Regards, Glyn ----------------- Moderator's note: Influence on self back in time is an old Scientology technique. Prior to that, an occult practice. Hardly new or thought up by anybody in RV. Ideas just cycle around I guess! -- PJ Reply | Forward

#2273

From: "Glyn" Date: Wed Feb 12, 2003 1:39 am Subject: RE: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment gebega Absolutely PJ, they do, and those of us who are lucky to live long enough, begin to see that happening all the time (especially in the workplace when it can get quite annoying when they're constantly re-inventing the wheel, causing extra work and just giving the old ideas a new name :-/). All we can hope for are little steps forward each time :-). Glyn ............... Moderator's note: Influence on self back in time is an old Scientology technique. Prior to that, an occult practice. Hardly new or thought up by anybody in RV. Ideas just cycle around I guess! -- PJ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#2264

From: "stanley01420 " Date: Tue Feb 11, 2003 6:58 am Subject: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment stanley01420 --- In pjrv...oups.com, "Scott Ellis " Some sessions are randomly assigned to have RI applied while the > others don't. The viewer has no knowledge - at least nonprecognitive > - of whether or not RI will be applied to the RV/ARV session they are > conducting. Then the viewer is not doing the RI? Then, who is doing it? How do you know that person *can* do it? If you assign it to someone who is untested, then doesn't that invalidate the test? > You calculate a different psi effect size for the control vs. the RI'd > sessions and see if the difference is statistically significant. Scott, wouldn't it be usefull to know if RI were a talent or a process first? I mean.... sure, anyone can throw a ball at a basket but not everyone can make the basket as often as Michael Jordan. I just don't get it. If you take ten people off the street to conduct a test of the reliability of basketball, couldn't that possibly lead you to conclude that it's impossible to make a basket? Oh nevermind... I'm not very scientific (obviously). trypper Reply | Forward

#2271

From: "Scott Ellis " Date: Tue Feb 11, 2003 10:33 am Subject: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment scottrver Hi trypper, > Then the viewer is not doing the RI? Then, who is doing it? > How do you know that person *can* do it? If you assign it to > someone who is untested, then doesn't that invalidate the test? I would propose to have the viewer do it to themselves as Lyn Buchanan describes on RIing himself. Who do you know who has been tested? I don't know anyone who has been tested for RI. That's the whole point of the experiment. People with no training in RV can still RV on their first outting - even I did! If someone thinks they can RI and wants to participate then that would be great. If no such volunteer steps forward then why would that invalidate the test? > Scott, wouldn't it be usefull to know if RI were a talent or a > process first? How do you make any determinations without testing? Of what validity is someone's opinion on RV or RI if there's no direct or indirect testing to back it up? Is RV a talent or a process? It doesn't matter, either way it has to be tested. Are the Joe McMoneagle's the only people in the world who can RV? You have to start somewhere trypper. Why don't I see any scientific testing of RI by the people who claim to do it? Hmmm? I will probably involve at least one published researcher. I will also certainly invite Pru, Lyn and anyone else who makes such a claim to participate. If my experiment fails and anybody wants to claim that RI works, and especially if they charge money to teach it, maybe it will motivate them to prove that it works with additional experiments which can be replicated. Don't you think somebody needs to move the process along? So who else is willing or interested in doing so? Unfortunately, I don't see anyone else stepping up to the plate and I want to know the answer - I'll even publish the results. I'm very open minded about RI, but I'd like to see it proven and in a repeatable way. Hell, I'll even claim to be able to RV beyond statistical chance under scientific controls. Scott Reply | Forward

#2277

From: "stanley01420 " Date: Wed Feb 12, 2003 6:54 am Subject: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment stanley01420 --- In pjrv...oups.com, "Scott Ellis " Hi trypper, > I would propose to have the viewer do it to themselves as Lyn Buchanan > describes on RIing himself. Who do you know who has been tested? I > don't know anyone who has been tested for RI. That's the whole point > of the experiment. People with no training in RV can still RV on > their first outting - even I did! If someone thinks they can RI and > wants to participate then that would be great. If no such volunteer > steps forward then why would that invalidate the test? I just didn't understand how you determined some viewers RIing and other's not. I thought they would all *try* to RI, even if they are told not to... almost unconsciously. And I don't get how an improvement in rv would necessarily be an indicator of a successful RI experiment. That seems so vague and unprovable to me. But, it's true that I don't understand how these things are done. You guys are the scientists, not me. > How do you make any determinations without testing? Of what validity > is someone's opinion on RV or RI if there's no direct or indirect > testing to back it up? Is RV a talent or a process? It doesn't > matter, either way it has to be tested. Are the Joe McMoneagle's the > only people in the world who can RV? You have to start somewhere trypper. > > Why don't I see any scientific testing of RI by the people who claim > to do it? Hmmm? I will probably involve at least one published > researcher. I will also certainly invite Pru, Lyn and anyone else who > makes such a claim to participate. If my experiment fails and anybody > wants to claim that RI works, and especially if they charge money to > teach it, maybe it will motivate them to prove that it works with > additional experiments which can be replicated. That is an excellent point. Certainly those who charge money to teach and to perform RI should be willing to put their talents to the test. >Don't you think > somebody needs to move the process along? So who else is willing or > interested in doing so? Unfortunately, I don't see anyone else > stepping up to the plate and I want to know the answer - I'll even > publish the results. > > I'm very open minded about RI, but I'd like to see it proven and in a > repeatable way. Hell, I'll even claim to be able to RV beyond > statistical chance under scientific controls. Well that's great, Scott. I'm certainly not trying to discourage you. And since Lyn's method of RIing backwards through time is the one you are interested in testing then lets see what happens. I'm certainly interested in seeing your results. trypper pjrv : Messages : 2246-2321 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/2246?)
23:50:26
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#2246

From: greenmn900... Date: Sat Feb 8, 2003 8:03 am Subject: Re: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment greenmn900... Scott, You wrote: "It's not quite necessary to go to the lengths you mentioned, as those factors in trying to create a level playing field can be minimized by simply having enough trials." Yeah I agree. I think I mentioned that, that if there's enough RVers or enough trials involved, many of the factors I described wouldn't have as much of an impact. The question then is: how many trials does it take to rule out the impact of those factors? How do we figure out how many trials it requires to create a level playing field? It's great that you've got a target pool from Ed May. It ought to be a good one then as he's familiar with bandwidth problems and all that. I don't what his experience is with ARV. You wrote: "It's easy to incorporate a control into the experiment and intermix sessions where the viewer will randomly be instructed to perform RI vs simply receiving feedback." Yeah but the question is: Do the control targets have the same degree of entropy as the experimental targets? Is there an unnoticed built-in bias in target selection that could shift the results of the experiment one way or the other? That's why I said the only way I could see to get around this issue would be to have the same RVer RV the same target at another time - once with RI and then again without RI. Then the difference you are looking for is based upon the *same* degree of difficulty in each run and in each session - except that then the RVer is aquainted with the target in the second run and that would have to be factored into the experiment as well. You wrote: "Also, there really isn't any significant difference between ARV and RV judged against decoys when you think about it. In both cases the session is being judged against several target possibilities." No I disagree. There's a *huge* difference. In ARV, you are focused on the eventual successful outcome, therefore the 2 or more target possibilities must have a *very large* degree of difference between each one of them for the judging part of it. And, at the time of the ARV session, each target possibility *is* a possibility. It *never* is in standard RV. In standard RV, using decoys for judging, you are trying to look for an effect greater than random chance, so the decoy targets should be completely random - the bandwidth between them isn't as much of an issue. If you *do* make it an issue, you are causing the experiment to be invalid, as you are conciously choosing decoys with a great degree of difference between them and the actual target than would occur by chance - so how could you measure for an effect greater than chance? This factor is gotten around in ARV by the entire process being one step removed from the actual desired outcome. The randomness is built into the degree of likelihood of the eventual outcome itself. Ther aims of ARV and standard RV with blind matching are completely different from each other - with each, you are measuring for different things. The protocol of target selection is also different - based on bandwidth because of the ARV judging process. You wrote: "The only difference is that the RV target is generally chosen at random whereas the ARV target is determined by some future event" Yes, in standard RV, the actual target as well as the decoys should be selected randomly. But in ARV, with the neccessity of a greater bandwidth between the real and decoy targets for the judging process, both must be selected consciously and purposefully to ensure a large degree of differentness between them. It's a completely different process, although on the face of it, it seems similar. AND, as I said before, in ARV you are inserting a judging process that will determine which target the RVer is shown at feedback time. This is not present in standard RV. In standard RV, there is no question which target the RVer will be shown. In ARV, the bandwidth and the judging process are tied up together in an inseperable way, because that's what determines which target the RVer is shown at feedback. In standard RV, the judging process had no impact on which the target the RVer is shown at feedback time. *****This is the important difference in RV and ARV and what causes the difference in target and decoy selection considerations in ARV vs. RV**** I think it can be done, but I wouldn't suggest trying it with ARV because of all the issues I listed here and in my last post. There really is quite a bit of difference between the two, which I am probably not explaining very well. But it would be much simpler to measure for RI with standard RV. But another point to consider is that any kind of experiment like this one is really measuring much more than standard RI. It is measuring RI that is directed intentionally backward through time - attempting to influence not the present, not the future, but a past that has already occurred. I don't know if this adds a degree of difficulty or not. Personally, I don't think so as I don't see time as a linear phenomenon anyway. But it's something to think about. Best Regards, Don [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#2249

From: "Scott Ellis " Date: Sat Feb 8, 2003 9:13 pm Subject: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment scottrver Hi Don, Don wrote: > Yeah but the question is: Do the control targets have the same degree of > entropy as the experimental targets? Is there an unnoticed built-in bias in > target selection that could shift the results of the experiment one way or > the other? That's why I said the only way I could see to get around this > issue would be to have the same RVer RV the same target at another time - > once with RI and then again without RI. Then the difference you are looking > for is based upon the *same* degree of difficulty in each run and in each > session - except that then the RVer is aquainted with the target in the > second run and that would have to be factored into the experiment as well. Scott writes: I would argue again that over enough trials, any reasonable effect size would show through. The number of trials required can be calculated based on the expected effect size. I would tend to think that having a viewer repeat a target is more problematic. re ARV vs RV Don wrote: > No I disagree. There's a *huge* difference. In ARV, you are focused on the > eventual successful outcome, therefore the 2 or more target possibilities > must have a *very large* degree of difference between each one of them for > the judging part of it. And, at the time of the ARV session, each target > possibility *is* a possibility. It *never* is in standard RV. > > In standard RV, using decoys for judging, you are trying to look for an > effect greater than random chance, so the decoy targets should be completely > random ... Scott writes: Actually ARV tasking is commonly along the lines of "Draw the feedback picture you will be shown for this ID#" The viewer isn't focussed on the eventual successful outcome, just the feedback picture. In consensus ARV experiments the sessions are commonly rank ordered or scored exactly as in RV experiments. Also, in many RV experiments the target is chosen from a pool of 4 or 5 at random AFTER the session has been done. The decoys do matter as to entropy and dissimilarity because you don't know which one will be the actual target at the time the session is done. I believe you can read an anecdotal description of a McMoneagle session of Diamondhead being chosen as the target post session in his most recent book. Don wrote: >But in ARV, with the neccessity of a greater bandwidth > between the real and decoy targets for the judging process, both must be > selected consciously and purposefully to ensure a large degree of > differentness between them. It's a completely different process, although on > the face of it, it seems similar. Scott writes: Again, the target pools are the same and should be prepared with dissimilarity and Shannon entropy in mind. Without the dissimilarity, it is very hard to rank order RV sessions. Don wrote: > AND, as I said before, in ARV you are inserting a judging process that will > determine which target the RVer is shown at feedback time. Scott writes: Actually in ARV the feedback target is determined entirely by the determining event. The judge has nothing to do with it. The only difference is that the feedback target in an RV experiment is chosen at random, not by a deterministic event. Many people claim how important tasking is for RV, but I simply haven't found that to be the case in these types of experiments. Anecdotally, Joe McMoneagle once suggested to me in an email to "have the intent to IGNORE any tasking instructions and simply provide whatever information is required of the target". Don wrote: > But another point to consider is that any kind of experiment like this one is > really measuring much more than standard RI. It is measuring RI that is > directed intentionally backward through time - attempting to influence not > the present, not the future, but a past that has already occurred. I don't > know if this adds a degree of difficulty or not. Personally, I don't think > so as I don't see time as a linear phenomenon anyway. Scott writes: Only one way to find out, certainly it's possible to RV past and future information. Also, you could have 3rd party RIers. Scott Reply | Forward

#2252

From: "Glyn" Date: Sun Feb 9, 2003 5:06 am Subject: RE: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment gebega Hello Don, Scott and all, Don said... But another point to consider is that any kind of experiment like this one is really measuring much more than standard RI. It is measuring RI that is directed intentionally backward through time - attempting to influence not the present, not the future, but a past that has already occurred. I don't know if this adds a degree of difficulty or not. Personally, I don't think so as I don't see time as a linear phenomenon anyway. But it's something to think about . ............................................... Now that's something to get the head round! I love paradoxes, and it comes from being a sci-fi fan, so I'm going to tie myself in knots now for the hell of it :-) Would you be trying to influence the past in order to change it, or would your RI become the reason that the past is what it is, so it's already a done deal? Say if I could identify a point in my past where a yes/no decision could have made me a millionaire today, but I took the wrong path, then perhaps I could RV back to that moment, and influence myself to take that alternative fork in the 'road'. Now, this would make me very rich today, but would also have changed all my memories, so I would never be able to (want to) RI back and change my path anyway; because on my current linear timeline I didn't make the wrong decision in the first place. There lies the paradox. Later thinking proposed that at the moment of that rags to riches decision, there would be two 'probabilities', so when I chose one the other probability stopped dead, or winked out, and my timeline continued down the other fork in the 'road'.. However...the paradox still doesn't go away, because the memories would change and I would never recognise the need to do the RI anyway. So...back to the RI. I do it,.....but it must have failed because I am still poor, no riches, still having to go to work :-). Now... I may not know if I had succeeded, but I definitely would if I had not. Therefore RI'ing the past to change the present doesn't work! Or does it? Now what if my RI *did* work, but not quite in the way expected. What if the 'poor' path (probability) did not wink out or stop dead after all? What if I just created another timeline along which one of 'me' went....while the original 'me' carried on along the 'poor' path? It would have to be...to avoid the paradox situation. It's too depressing; and maybe it happens constantly. No wonder we need linear time; we'd go bonkers without it. Sorry for my rambles, they help me get my thoughts in order, but probably don't help anyone else much. LOL! Regards, Glyn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#2259

From: greenmn900... Date: Sun Feb 9, 2003 4:43 pm Subject: Re: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment greenmn900... Hi Scott, You wrote: "The number of trials required can be calculated based on the expected effect size. I would tend to think that having a viewer repeat a target is more problematic." I agree that repeating a target is frought with problems but I still don't see any way around it. How do you determine an "expected effect size" for an RI trial that is directed backward in time? I don't know of this ever being done before. What would you base it on? You wrote: "Actually ARV tasking is commonly along the lines of "Draw the feedback picture you will be shown for this ID#" The viewer isn't focussed on the eventual successful outcome, just the feedback picture." I didn't mean the *viewer* is focused on the eventual outcome, I meant the *experimenter* is. You wrote: " In consensus ARV experiments the sessions are commonly rank ordered or scored exactly as in RV experiments. Also, in many RV experiments the target is chosen from a pool of 4 or 5 at random AFTER the session has been done. The decoys do matter as to entropy and dissimilarity because you don't know which one will be the actual target at the time the session is done. I believe you can read an anecdotal description of a McMoneagle session of Diamondhead being chosen as the target post session in his most recent book." Of course ARV scoring can be done the same as standard RV, and of course in standard RV the targets can be chosen after the session. This is common stuff. But it doesn't address the difference in the purpose of the targets that exists between ARV and standard RV. In standard RV, the targets and the decoys *must* be chosen at random. if you purposefully pick out the decoys to ensure a great deal of disimiliarity, they are no longer random and there is no effect. The experimenter has interfered with the process. This isn't the case with ARV. In ARV, each target is linked to a possible outcome and must be chosen consciously and purposefully. You wrote: "Actually in ARV the feedback target is determined entirely by the determining event. The judge has nothing to do with it. The only difference is that the feedback target in an RV experiment is chosen at random, not by a deterministic event" You're right, there would be no need for a judging to be inserted into the process before the deterministic event. I was thinking along the lines of applications and got off track, lol! But a judge is still needed. Okay, here's an example: Let's say the ARV test is linked to a car race. If Car A. wins, the viewer is shown a picture of a forest. If Car B. wins, the viewer will be shown a picture of an airplane. The viewer completes the session and hands in his results. (At this point, in an application, a judge would be needed to determine which target the viewer is reporting on - but not in an experiment) Let's say Car A. wins the race and so the viewer is shown the picture of a forest. But who decides if the viewer turned in data that is representative of a forest? A judge, right? Someone has to determine if the viewer has been successful or not. You wrote: "Anecdotally, Joe McMoneagle once suggested to me in an email to "have the intent to IGNORE any tasking instructions and simply provide whatever information is required of the target." Lol! He's told me the same thing. Well, best of luck in your experiment. I'd be glad to join in if you want to do it. Best Regards, Don [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#2262

From: "Scott Ellis " Date: Tue Feb 11, 2003 12:31 am Subject: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment scottrver Hi Don, > How do you determine an "expected effect size" for an > RI trial that is directed backward in time? I don't know of this ever being > done before. What would you base it on? Sorry, I didn't word that very well. You can calculate the number of trials to detect a minimum amount of effect for a given level of confidence if you have an approximate idea as to the non-RI effect size. You don't try to predict what the effect size will be, you decide the smallest you'll be able to detect. The smaller the effect size you wish to be able to measure, the more trials you'll need. If you don't have enough trials, you may still see the effect but the probability of it happening by chance would be too high. I hope that's enough better to give you the idea. > But it doesn't address the difference in the purpose of the targets > that exists between ARV and standard RV. In standard RV, the targets and the > decoys *must* be chosen at random. if you purposefully pick out the decoys > to ensure a great deal of disimiliarity, they are no longer random and there > is no effect. The experimenter has interfered with the process. This isn't > the case with ARV. In ARV, each target is linked to a possible outcome and > must be chosen consciously and purposefully. You want dissimilarity with decoys too so that you can more easily judge them. You don't want to randomly select 4 different pictures of mountains and try to do an RV judging about which mountain the session resembles the most. The targets and decoys are still chosen at random, however the target database is organized into say 15 categories. Within each category you might have 25 target photos. If you want to run a trial with 1 target and 3 decoys, the software selects 4 categories at random and 1 target from each of those categories at random. If you're doing ARV it randomly assigns each of those 4 to a different outcome. If you're doing RV, you randomly select 1 of those 4 as the target. Successive trials are chosen such that the same picture isn't used twice. I think we're on the same page on judging. > Well, best of luck in your experiment. > I'd be glad to join in if you want to do it. Great. I'll run it by a few researchers first to see if they have any suggestions or comments. Scott Reply | Forward

#2268

From: greenmn900... Date: Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:29 pm Subject: Re: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment greenmn900... Scott, Thanks, it's clear to me now what you meant about effect size to measure for the RI effect. I should have understood right away but I can be a little dense sometimes. :-) You wrote: "Within each category you might have 25 target photos. If you want to run a trial with 1 target and 3 decoys, the software selects 4 categories at random and 1 target from each of those categories at random." Oh! Okay, I see how you're doing it now. That's a perfect protocol - or at least as close to perfect as we can get, I think. I agree that you need dissimiliarity between targets and decoys for judging, I just didn't understand how you were going to randomize it so that it would remain a double blind. I read back over a few of my emails on this subject and I didn't like the tone of my writing. I'm sorry if it seemed that I was doubting your ability to conduct an experiment or if I was being challenging in any way. That wasn't my intention at all. I just misunderstood how you were going to go about it and it didn't seem like all the bases were being covered. But it's clear that they are, now that I understand how you're setting up the protocol. So, I apologize if my tone wasn't as friendly as I intended it to be. I'm eager to try it as soon as you're ready. I can't wait to see if we can get an effect for RI. To my knowledge, this will be the first time this kind of backwards-directed intention has been tested for. Best Regards, Don [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#2272

From: "Scott Ellis " Date: Tue Feb 11, 2003 9:54 pm Subject: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment scottrver Hi Don, > I read back over a few of my emails on this subject and I didn't like the > tone of my writing. I'm sorry if it seemed that I was doubting your ability > to conduct an experiment or if I was being challenging in any way. That > wasn't my intention at all. Not a problem at all. I certainly don't think it's a bad thing to question how things will be done before investing the energy to participate, let alone the chance that you might point out an error or improvement. Scott Reply | Forward

#2274

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Wed Feb 12, 2003 8:43 pm Subject: Re: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment docsavagebill Hi Scott, I think you have a very good idea there. How do you plan to RI your viewing feedback exactly? Bill* __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com Reply | Forward

#2285

From: "Scott Ellis " Date: Thu Feb 13, 2003 1:11 am Subject: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment scottrver Hi Bill, Each participant can apply whatever methodology they wish within the protocol. I'll document those I find out about for people to choose from if they don't already have their own. From what people here have described, the variations have two things in common 1) develop target contact similar to RV, 2) apply intent. I'll see if I can find out other variations and more details about Lyn's methods over the next couple of weeks. Scott --- In pjrv...oups.com, Bill Pendragon wrote: > Hi Scott, > > I think you have a very good idea there. How do you > plan to RI your viewing feedback exactly? > > Bill* > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day > http://shopping.yahoo.com Reply | Forward

#2290

From: greenmn900... Date: Fri Feb 14, 2003 3:23 pm Subject: Re: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment greenmn900... Hi Scott, You wrote: "If my experiment fails and anybody wants to claim that RI works, and especially if they charge money to teach it, maybe it will motivate them to prove that it works with additional experiments which can be replicated. Don't you think somebody needs to move the process along? So who else is willing or interested in doing so? Unfortunately, I don't see anyone else stepping up to the plate and I want to know the answer - I'll even publish the results." These are very good points you're making here. Even though I deeply believe RI works and is a very real phenomenon, I can't say that I feel confident I've proven it repeatedly - like I can about RV. Even mountains of anecdotal evidence isn't enough if it doesn't bear up under controls. Best Regards, Don [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#2297

From: "Eva " Date: Mon Feb 17, 2003 1:54 am Subject: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment k9caninek9 One thing to consider. Excuse me as I've not been keeping up with the posts, but my impression has been that the goal of the ri experiment is to ri an improvement at arv. One thing to consider is that when ri is discussed, it is usually in regards to a particular single simple action or event that usually has to do with a voluntary action. Now if you are planning to ri correctness on arv sessions, that may be a more difficult thing to ri because what is 'better' is a complex and nebulous thing. It also assumes that an rver is capable of improving in an almost instantaneous way. For instance, I know I am capable of lowering my blood pressure because a biofeedback machine can prove that, but I do not know if I am capable of instanteously improving my arv. IF the experiment were to fail, there could be a number of explanations besides that ri does not work. It could be that ri is difficult or does not work under such circumstances as you have set up. Also, I assume you are setting up double blinding procedures to prevent placebo effect? (sorry if that was in previous emails as I am way behind) -E --- In pjrv...oups.com, greenmn900...ote: > Hi Scott, > You wrote: > "If my experiment fails and anybody > wants to claim that RI works, and especially if they charge money to > teach it, maybe it will motivate them to prove that it works with > additional experiments which can be replicated. Don't you think > somebody needs to move the process along? So who else is willing or > interested in doing so? Unfortunately, I don't see anyone else > stepping up to the plate and I want to know the answer - I'll even > publish the results." > > These are very good points you're making here. Even though I deeply believe > RI works and is a very real phenomenon, I can't say that I feel confident > I've proven it repeatedly - like I can about RV. Even mountains of anecdotal > evidence isn't enough if it doesn't bear up under controls. > Best Regards, > Don > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#2298

From: "Eva " Date: Tue Feb 18, 2003 6:12 pm Subject: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment k9caninek9 Oops, sorry I see you are planning carefully to control for double blindness, etc. Sorry for questioning you on that. I've been reading further back in time now. One other interesting thing is if you do find a statistical significance, how that might change if the experiment is run continuously for a while. Will it still be statistically significant and a similar percentage diff after 6 months for instance? The reason I ask is because of the well known beginner's luck phenomenon in arv. Now I wouldn't think that in this case with it being double blind that you would have that effect, but that is just a guess and I don't know of any unclassified evidence that really explains that. All I know of are logical guesses. Either way, if it stays the same or it doesn't, that might also tell us something about the beginner's luck effect, provided of course that you found a statistical diff in the first place. -E Reply | Forward

#2302

From: "Scott Ellis " Date: Wed Feb 19, 2003 9:53 am Subject: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment scottrver Hi Eva, > One thing to consider is > that when ri is discussed, it is usually in regards to a particular > single simple action or event that usually has to do with a voluntary > action. Very good point. Other tasks may better lend themselves to RI, however, that seems quite indeterminate at this point since nobody has conducted any experiments. One could argue that an RV/ARV task might produce greater RI results since the RVer is already openning a channel to their subconscious through which any RI effects could flow. I have no idea, but it would be good to probably conduct a couple of different tests. I'll see what other tasks I can come up with that would be measurable. > IF the experiment were to fail, > there could be a number of explanations besides that ri does not > work. It could be that ri is difficult or does not work under such > circumstances as you have set up. I agree completely. A failure, however, might prompt others who teach RI methods to get involved enough to put together a test which demonstrates its effectiveness. Scott Reply | Forward

#2308

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Thu Feb 20, 2003 7:57 pm Subject: Re: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment docsavagebill Hi Scott, I saw a post that Mischlove and Spottiswood are trying an RI type of experiment measuring sweat gland response to seeing disturbing pictures etc. In this experiment Radin already showed that a person starts sweating 3 seconds before seeing a disturbing picture. It did not have a very high effect size but was quite significant...but perhaps they have improved the procedure now. In any case one could use the sweating response to help determine if one was picking the correct picture. One would send back severe negative feelings associated with the wrong pictures and peaceful ones with the correct picture..and see if a correclation occurred between skin response and wrong images... ( all within double blind protocols etc of course). Best Regards, Bill Reply | Forward

#2320

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Tue Feb 25, 2003 11:51 pm Subject: Re: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment docsavagebill Hi Scott, Very well done! I'm glad to know someone in on that. HOwever, in a feedback loop the RVer could be in rapport with feedback at whatever time was tasked. For instance say I'm wired to the meter.. and also thru the matrix to myself in the future. My future self looks at the picture in the future he knows is wrong and gets a an electric shock while watching some gross scene. ...I now ( back in the past) look at the wrong picture and my skin response goes crazy.. so I know that's the wrong picture. Then in the future I look at the right picture while a simulated Marylyn Monroe blows me a kiss. Back in the past my skin meter is reading just fine. Best Regards, Reply | Forward

#2321

From: "Glyn" Date: Fri Feb 28, 2003 1:07 pm Subject: RE: Re: Remote Influencing Experiment gebega Hi Bill, Couldn't resist chipping in here, because that's a great illustration of 'future memory' at work, and I'm boring everyone on the Farview list to death with talking about that at the moment, so I thought I'd give it a rest there and start again back here. LOL!! Just kidding ;-) Grins, Glyn

// 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