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 : 3966-3985 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3966?)
16:22:36
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#3966

From: "Jon Knowles" Date: Sun Apr 4, 2004 10:30 pm Subject: The Galleries and practice jonknowles8 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 PJ, I really appreciate you (and TKR) undertaking this project and taking so much time to get feedback and offer your thoughts and reasoning on how and why you are proceeding. It's very rare in this field, and very nice to see. You have written a lot on this, not all of which I can recall, so kindly excuse any oversight along those lines. Along with Tunde, I agree that it is a bit difficult to really understand how it will look and work until we get in there and do it. That said, I would still favor starting out with the Galleries as "practice" and then adding other "modules" if time and experience warrant. As to the limitations of practice, I want to offer a different perspective from what sometimes seems implied by various contributors. Practice can be broadened so that it includes more than just photos, which represent real enough things in themselves and as such make for useful objectives. "Practice" may not have the oomph that certain taskings may have, that extra edge that some people get from a real life tasking that matters (matters more I would say), but they can have ommph enough. Esp. since you are I believe planning to exclude taskings like murder and mayhem, crisis situations and similar taskings that may tend to focus the RV mind. You comment that practice targets or objectives in the Gallery will include more than pictures. I think this is a very important point, often overlooked. If there are only pictures (photos, drawings) as objectives, one is cutting off the scope of possible objectives quite a bit. This limitation may help develop particular aspects of RV skills (such as the visual and the literal), but this may also tend to not develop other skills which a broader range of objectives could help foster. For example, non-photo objectives MIGHT include ones LIKE these: the next significant positive event in the viewer's life, the power unit of the Mars Spirit, the outcome of the next (or last) chess match between Kasparov and a computer, the winner of the next presidential election, a specific afternoon at the American Constitutional Convention, the closing scenes from the movie 2001, etc. That is, events, situations, hard to photograph places, conceptuals, etc No dout better examples can be found. These can be structured so that they relate even more to things a person might want to know (like the presidential election example) and thus add "oomph" to the practice. If data is often or always more than literal - symbolic, figurature, conceptual, etc. (and I have seen plenty of evidence it is) - then practice should at some point work on developing skills that allow one to access those aspects of reality and allow these other kinds of data to express themnselves. It sounds like you have it set up (or plan to set it up), so if a viewer wants only pictures, they can get only pictures. If they want more, such as objectives like the above (or some subset), they can get those. At any rate, that is what I would favor. It seems to me that developing the viewers, which is the primary intent of the project as I understand it, doesn't require involving whatever non-viewers who have a curiosity about the field would get from submitting taskings that would be, it sounds like, for kicks, curiosity, or humor and maybe a bit more. Another way to put it, I think the project should focus on one thing - training and not on quasi-entertaiment or quasi-operations. At the outset at least. A bit more on the taskings given to viewers - I think remote viewers (not just in TKR but everywhere) should be given the option to specifiy in advance what kinds of objectives they don't want to view. Some may never want to view murders/death, etc. Some may never want to view certain religious, cultural or sexual activities, for all I know. Some may not want to view major negative significant events in their life - or perhaps even any events at all in their own life. This goes for beginning viewers and for very experienced viewers. This may limit their abilities to view "anything in the universe", which for bllind/double blind operations work is desirable, but that is their right and choice. Just a few more thoughts to put in the pot. Jon Reply | Forward

#3970

From: "pjgaenir" Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 11:27 am Subject: Re: The Galleries and practice pjgaenir Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Howdy Jon, > I agree that it is a bit difficult to really understand how it will > look and work until we get in there and do it. Yep, I understand. Won't be long now. I'm sure folks will have more feedback when they can actually try it out. My biggest concern with the Galleries is there are five of them at the moment (2 for display, 2 for viewing, 1 for contributing viewing-- 2 more planned but not yet made), and each one has enough options to it, that learning one's way around in it takes a bit of time, no matter how simple I tried to make it. Especially for people who are a bit web-challenged. There's also stuff like, a viewer home page option, and psi-Notes (messaging, which also allows sending a private note to the viewer of an anonymous session), personal settings, stats... it's a big application actually, the kind of thing most FT fairly successful businesses would still probably find too much to pay for making. It might be good news for some that while the MBC was made to be commercial, so has lots of images and stuff, the Galleries is NOT. Aside from a few teeny title graphics and icons, the only images in the site are the FB pics and whatever people upload with sessions. The Galleries are as text-based as possible to make using them practical for folks with a slow ISP. > I would still favor starting out with the Galleries as "practice" > and then adding other "modules" if time and experience warrant. Well only one Gallery is practice, two other Galleries are viewing that is not quite practice (some has potentially no FB and another is non-TKR stuff) and two Galleries are all about display (one for voting/commenting on sessions). But I assume you mean the Galleries (as a whole) vs. the Mercy Street project idea (which isn't a Gallery), since all viewing experience could be classified as a type of practice. I can put Mercy Street off. Thing is, I made founding policies for people helping run TKR that once it's created, anything of import has staff vote. I've only got autonomy in the creation. Once live, I don't control it, though I'm a Wizop in each area. So I think, to be fair and objective here, partly this is about my attempting to maneuver in the space I've got, while I've got it. I want this project to be an option, and hosted by TKR. If I open the Galleries and it is not part of it, then it only gets hosted in the Galleries *if* the Wizop Council will vote it in. I'm honestly not sure they will. So to impose MY will on it all, I need it to be part of what's initially created. Political? Maybe... but I deliberately sought out people for TKR with the gumption to speak their mind and who are not at all cowed by me--which means if I go trying to be a dictator they'll kick my butt. (Hmmmn. Wondering if I should have sought out star-struck pansies instead. :-)) It just occurs to me that the Resource Center (the third of three parts of the project) is barely begun and won't open for quite awhile, so technically, if I made it part of THAT, I could get away with not putting it online yet, but still having the option to do it as part of the founding-creation of the project. Well that's a stretch for getting my way isn't it. :-) I'll think about it. Maybe if I made it part of the RC, it would give me plenty of time to decide to do it or not do it, how best to go about it, plus might give us an idea of whether or not we're getting enough participation from viewers in the project to make it worth bothering with to begin with. The RC likely won't be done until the end of the year, though I'm hoping to have at least some up by mid-year. > Practice can be broadened so that it includes more than just photos, I sure hope so. Although there are other options (there's really no limit), the Galleries system itself has as possible TYPES of feedback (so to speak) these choices: * Color photo * B&W photo * News/Web Article * Website or Encyclopedia * Text info * In-Person Visit * Tasking Info Only (no FB) * No feedback on existence We could add more, that's just what I came up with off the top of my head for the form. At the moment, all the practice targets are a photograph, most of them with a decent amount of text info added though. This is because I do not have infinite time for creating practice targets. Hopefully over time I'll get some folks to volunteer help with that. The reason the latter two categories are in that list above, especially the 'tasking info only', is because there are a lot of taskings that may involve for example the viewer themselves, future events, things like that. At feedback point, only the tasking info would be available. These are very likely to be common in the Missions Gallery I suspect, but I wanted there to be an option for them in the practice area too, just in case. I've had a difficult time, on top of everything else involved in this, with the time for coming up with targets. They have to be usable (not going to get sued over copyright stuff) photos, and I saved, sized, cropped, typed text on most. Each one has to be uploaded separately so feedback type(s) can be noted, and dowsing- time FB degree noted, and dowsing-space FB degree noted, and if there's additional text, typing that into the text feedback area. (Taskings allow a primary file (any web type: PDF, image, whatever), text, plus three additional files (any web type), but so far all that's in there is mostly images which have text info on the image.) It's mind bogglingly time consuming, this kind of stuff. So at the moment there's about 500 individual taskings in the practice area, but that will increase over time. Meanwhile, the Missions Gallery taskings have a lifespan--an open and close date. This means they are constantly in flux, as opposed to the Practice Gallery (v1) targets which can just sit there indefinitely for use. And Missions are open to the "full scope" of tasking- forms. Tasking rights for Missions extend to all TKR staff, all MBC org-board owners, and anybody the wizops care to invite. This covers quite a few diverse personalities and interests, I expect. There are some people who'd likely not task anything remotely esoteric unless it had a news article as feedback. There are others who'll be using the "no feedback on existence" I suspect. (Actually, this IS an area where there ARE guidelines (per your previous post), and as soon as I complete writing them, I will post them here for RV Oasis folks to comment on. These are done not to restrict HOW one tasks, only to prohibit certain unethical taskings that would harm TKR's reputation in some way. E.g., you don't task a viewer on current political leaders psyche intent, intimate/sexual aspects of their life or anyone else's, or government secrets that might literally endanger the viewer.) In the Missions Gallery, viewers filter the taskings they're willing to take by "degree of feedback". Here are the 'degrees'. A a tasker sets one of these to best match the task. When a viewer requests a Mission, they will get a random selection (cloned to a unique tasking#) from taskings set at their 'minimum task feedback level' OR HIGHER. 1 - No FB even on target's existence 2 - No FB at all, on known target 3 - Partial (minimal) (~FB only a few scant data points) 4 - Partial (moderate) (~FB only on some aspects) 5 - Partial (mostly) (~FB on main but tasked on unknown) 6 - Normal/minimal: brief descrip of target 7 - Normal/standard: photograph or brief news article 8 - Normal/detail: encyclopedic-type feedback 9 - Live/standard: site visit, different time than tasking 10 - Live/focus: site visit at point of tasking So if you choose level 4, all the taskings in levels 4-10 will be put in a list, and the system will randomly choose one of them, clone it and assign it a unique# for you and lock it to your memberID. In the Practice Gallery, viewers filter the taskings they're willing to take by "categories" of practice targets. Eventually we'll allow people to add their own taskings and manage a target pool of their own, mixed with ours if they wish. But for now, there's just some in- system targets which are categorized. Here are the categories: Basic: Events Basic: Gestalt (may also contain people) Basic Focus: Animals & Critters Basic Focus: People, General The above are all selected by default when people register, so a tasking is created from a random selection out of all those. Viewers can practice frontloaded on something specific, like say people, by simply un-checking all but the 'people' category in their settings. The below categories of taskings cannot be obtained unless the viewer goes forth and seeks it, responds to some forms, etc.: Advanced Focus: People (WARNING: some (not all!) photos may contain Nudity, Trauma, Violence, or other potentially disturbing content) Advanced: Gestalt (WARNING: some (not all!) photos may contain or infer death, violence, or other potentially disturbing content.) Advanced: Events (WARNING: some (not all!) photos may contain or infer mass or personalized death, violence, extreme trauma, and other potentially disturbing content.) I might add that while all of these are 'advanced' primarily for the reasons movies are rated R, the last category is pretty grim. There are taskings in advanced cats that are innocuous of course, but most the simple ones would be in the basic categories, so the advanced cats have a tendency not just to more complexity, but usually disturbing content. I put these in, because they are in MY target pool (actually, I filtered OUT the worst of my own pool for this...) and because I think experienced viewers who want to do ops and world events, may wish to practice on the kind of things which alas do happen in the real world. They are not, however, all violent--I mean, it would be a huge AOL to limit one's practice tasking to say, one of the advanced categories, and think they were all like that. The detail varies greatly. There's also: Advanced: Time-Series Advanced: Concept-Series Which I haven't got in the system yet, as they are multi-tasking- point types that are difficult to come by good FB for creating. > It sounds like you have it set up (or plan to set it up), > so if a viewer wants only pictures, they can get only pictures. It's more like, in the practice gallery it's set up so the viewer chooses the type of content (very loosely/generally--and yes, this CAN frontload the alleged double-blind IF the viewer has chosen to limit their categories, but this is one of several examples of a system set up NOT to be scientific, but instead to give the viewer options to enrich their work, which we take in good faith...); in the missions gallery it's set up so the viewer chooses the degree of feedback. So they're not really choosing the 'form' feedback comes in, only the degree to which FB answers the tasking. In the practice area, the requirement for a practice target (regardless of FB form) is that the FB be very specific to the tasking focus. > If they want more, such as objectives like the above (or some subset), > they can get those. At any rate, that is what I would favor. If they want something aside from taskings specific to the focus of a photo or article, they can request Missions Gallery taskings, which will include "everything else". > I think remote viewers (not just in TKR but everywhere) should be > given the option to specifiy in advance what kinds of objectives they > don't want to view. Absolutely. At least, one can't get too detailed here but certainly in the case of violence, death, and other potentially shocking content, NO viewer should be tasked that kind of stuff unless they have deliberately sought out including such taskings for their own reasons. That is the reason that targets with this kind of thing are separated out into "advanced" categories, and viewers can't get those unless they make a big effort to request them in the 'Advanced Options' area. I might add that the entire Missions Gallery is considered an 'advanced option' -- it has to be specifically applied for once inside the Galleries. This is because I have no way of knowing what various taskers may choose to put in there. And even pretty general taskings can on occasion turn out to have something shocking (esp. if they're precog, no way to know). It's also because the taskings may not be standard in approach--they may not be the typical 'basic with a photo' people expect. Some people may not want to deal with the vagaries of different taskers with different ideas, or the sometimes offbeat results that brings. > It seems to me that developing the viewers, which is the primary intent of the project > as I understand it, doesn't require involving whatever non-viewers who have a > curiosity about the field would get from submitting taskings that would be, > it sounds like, for kicks, curiosity, or humor and maybe a bit more. Well, although I am always the one going on about how "pictures ARE the 'real world' darn it!", it's been my experience that viewers often respond differently to taskings they know are about current, live things which someone needs an answer to. So, I'd wanted that as another exposure for viewers, to a slight difference in tasking or how they are likely to interpret the tasking. Practice tasking is on very specific things, specific FB. Mission taskings are wide-scope taskings, generalities, esoteria, current events, predictions, stuff with no FB, and variances not only in target types but in approaches to the tasking itself, too. (They can also be hard FB but more detailed or complex stuff a tasker might feel is a good challenge or experience for viewers.) Mercy Street I figured would be practical, not 'crisis' but still 'real world needs' taskings. So I was just working to cover the spectrum there, for viewer experience reasons. > Another way to put it, I think the project should focus on one thing - > training and not on quasi-entertaiment or quasi-operations. At the > outset at least. I appreciate your input. Some people feel that's best. Some don't, and I haven't made up my mind yet, but all this discussion is helping... I know my subconscious is plowing through all this in the background and at some point is going to hand me a decision and a picture. I should add though that TKR doesn't do training, although we do exist to support 'viewer development'. I know what you mean, but I'm trying to avoid the word 'training' in any form related to the project, just to keep from (a) offending scientists and (b) annoying people who actually DO train and won't want TKR to be seen as "a free alternative". (More politics! :-) Sigh.) PJ Reply | Forward

#3971

From: "Eva" Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 5:26 pm Subject: Re: The Galleries and practice k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Aha! Now the secret is out! You mean if we all voted to nix something after creation, you would just ignore us all? Maybe if we all voted to boot it, then it really deserves to be booted. Sometimes the truth is painful (assuming of course that democracy=truth, hehe). But as it is, I don't recall any rabid dislike of the idea. I don't think I'd vote for the boot as long as it stays similar to what you have been describing, ie not tackling mortal cases. On that note, I do agree that we might be advised to hold off on starting the mercy street aspect. There may be massive confusion as it is with the practice galleries and it might be better to let viewers cut their teeth on practice sessions first in order to get the hang of it and work out the kinks before tackling any ops. Plus us admin will need time to get used to everything as well. Once that mess is sorted, we can then open the mercy street aspect. It will have the added advantage of giving us the appearance of continued and constant work on TKR. Of course I know that you are always doing that anyway, but since it's all behind the scenes, the outside only see results. Adding stuff in smaller bites might be more palatable and 'taste better' to our users. (oh man, I think it's dinner time or something!) -E > PJ wrote: > If I open the Galleries and it is not part of it, then it > only gets hosted in the Galleries *if* the Wizop Council will > vote it in. I'm honestly not sure they will. ------------------- Naw, I didn't even think about a vote to cancel it, LOL! I only thought about, that if it didn't "already exist", it'd take a vote to add it in. PJ Reply | Forward

#3975

From: "Scott" Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 12:11 am Subject: Re: The Galleries and practice scottrver Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi PJ, Is there any facility that insures a viewer has uploaded a session before receiving feedback? Scott ------------------ Hi Scott--Absolutely. In the Practice Gallery, it's optional to provide a session, people don't have to. But once they get FB they can't provide data for that task. (And you can do multiple sessions on a task-but you can't see FB if any are not yet closed/confirmed.) In the Missions Gallery, you can't even get FB if you don't upload some data. (FB is delayed there, as each task has a set date for it... unlike practice, where FB is ready whenever you are.) Also in the Missions Gallery, a tasker could technically create the task but not upload the feedback, as the 'task close' date is separate from the feedback date. So by the time they upload feedback if they chose to delay, all the sessions would already be in the system. -- PJ Reply | Forward

#3981

From: "Scott" Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 2:19 pm Subject: Re: The Galleries and practice scottrver Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi PJ, More thoughts on the galleries. It would be really nice to get more data points for LST. Could a couple of fields be included to log the date and times the session began and ended along with the viewer's city, state and country? Can the uploaded session area for a viewer be optionally accessed by others at the viewer's discretion? Scott Reply | Forward

#3983

From: "pjgaenir" Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 4:44 pm Subject: Re: The Galleries and practice pjgaenir Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hiya Scott, Thanks for the ideas. > It would be really nice to get more data points for LST. It would. I actually thought of that when building it. But I decided that I would keep as much bias as possible out of the system built for viewers; Dean Radin and others at GotPsi.com can run science. > Could a couple of fields be included to log the > date and times the session began and ended along > with the viewer's city, state and country? I chose not to include this. (This involved taking it OUT, since I began with it in.) Here is why: First, it's an anonymous system. It's nobody's business, even the system's, where they live. People are kind of paranoid in this field sometimes. I wanted them to genuinely be able to be anonymous. Second, the "session begin/end/loc" is a set of assumptions. In science, this process of getting data on a tasking comes as a single uninterrupted session by one person and that's assumed. But this isn't science, this is just doing. TKR allows someone to register and represent a group if they want, we don't care. We also don't demand that their data come just as one session or that they provide the raw session pages. (They can if they want.) When a record of data is uploaded on a tasking, it might represent five sessions, one of which had 2 hours of sleep between the first and last parts, three different people in three different parts of the country contributing to all that, even analysis first if they want, etc. What the system sees might be the team leader logging in and pasting in a text summary of the final presentation. Since the system keeps them fully blind, it just wants data; that's all that is required. The system DOES ask for them to answer -- but, it allows them the option to just ignore this -- things like, did they have a monitor, what method did they use, were they blind to the target[1] and was everyone else blind to the target[1], etc. With multi-person sessions these would not apply, but with one-person of data, which most registrations will be, one can specify that sort of thing without regard to precisely where they are or the assumption that all data was collected at one point. [1] We're assuming on no tasker collusion here. Version2 practice gives the tasker a task# and that same# goes to the viewers; it's built to support hrvg's belief system about task#s and cueing. Obviously that's an area of trust. Also, wizops--in the Galleries that would be myself and Benton--have the ability to see a task/FB for a given viewer, and it's an area of trust that we aren't 'cheating' in any way. Scientists could task and withhold FB till all sessions were in, so the system CAN be used in that manner. But the default setup is, since it is not science and instead merely a supportive tool, an assumption of trust. There would be nothing wrong with adding those fields in I suppose. I just felt that gotpsi was covering science and so I would pursue a different route. The fact is that in public/viewers, although they like science, when they see someone's sessions, they don't care when/where it was and aren't going to grab an atlas and calculate the LST for it. They want scientists to do that and give us the answers lol. (Unless the session is phenomenal of course, in which case folks care about everything.) They DO however have an interest in what method a viewer uses and whether they have a monitor and info like that. So again, this was built more to support the practice and interest of the layman viewer, than to support science. If you or others lean on me hard about the LST thing I might bother adding it back in. I'm going to add group-task functions which I hadn't planned, as it's been so strongly requested as 'important'. So far there hasn't seemed a need to track/assume on single uninterrupted session date/time/loc, and since the system is so uncontrolled anyway in every manner except feedback, I figured it isn't scientific if I DO ask, because we can't confirm that the data is even accurate. It's as likely to screw up science getting data that is guessing, memory, approximate, ignoring the accidental nap in the middle or whatever, as help it. In summary, TKR puts the focus on psychic data and WHAT is acquired, rather than psychic functioning and HOW it is performed. Since we're outside a controlled environ, might as well. Unlike a computer based system that would generate a target at point X, then ask for data, and when it's inserted, that marks point Y, we don't do that; people can request a task, then come back in a year and upload data if they want. So, being not only unsupervised physically, but NOT restricted in date or time either, it is simply a system for supporting all forms of receptive psi and any way that people want to go about that. It is not a system that "controls for" a wide variety of science- related info. Had Dean not opened gotpsi.com, I would have kept this stuff in, since the internet is a useful source of people for science data. I talked with Ed May several eons ago (couple years) about these project plans and he was all for it. But I changed the plans a lot after gotpsi was around, since I see zero point to reinventing wheels, and instead slanted it over toward supporting viewers with a lot of options rather than supporting science with a lot of viewer demands. Since there is already a good site collecting science data - - just like Marty already has a good site collecting ARV data -- I don't see the need for TKR to replicate that. I wanted to make something the field doesn't yet have. We will be ref-linking over to PIA and GotPsi in the Galleries for those interested though! People can include that kind of info in their data; if they scan pages, many have that info on it as it's common to write full date/time/loc in the various methodologies at beginning and end. There is a space where people can put any info/intro in that they want, as well. So there's plenty of space for it. But I doubt that most people will bother with that info, and I did not build the system to assume/demand/request it. Sorry. It isn't a science software in that regard--on purpose. > Can the uploaded session area for a viewer > be optionally accessed by > others at the viewer's discretion? It's possible, but not set up for that. Is there a reason that would be necessary? All sessions display in the Demo Gallery. Everybody sees everything already. It's just that most of them will say 'anonmyous' as the viewer. There's also a listing that groups by viewer alias or viewer name -- but the anon sessions don't list there for obvious reasons. And there's an option for a personal website/homepage where people can link to their fave sessions, their own or others -- but again that wouldn't have "everything" they'd done. Anonymous is truly anonymous in this system. Any viewer can tell their friend, "ID 386 dated yesterday is mine" and their friend would know, if the session was anonymous, without exposing every session they've ever done to someone else. I'm sure I could build in a small thing that would let someone give a password for others to see 'their' list of sessions. But given that all sessions show in the Demo Gallery, and any allowed show in the Peanut Gallery, and sessions group by named viewers as well, and a viewer can have a home page linking to the sessions they most feel like sharing, and they can privately tell whom they want of a session (s) marked anon that are theirs--it just didn't strike me as necessary. Also in the group-task option, the tasker and on FB, the group, will (privately) be able to see the sessions for that task (IF the tasker has set it so they can) even though over in the demo gallery they'd all be anon/alias/etc. for everybody else. Can you think of a reason people might want to do this? I'm willing to build stuff in that people want. I just didn't think of that; I'm not sure why that would be a common request? What makes you think to ask this? PJ Reply | Forward

#3984

From: "Scott" Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 6:58 pm Subject: Re: The Galleries and practice scottrver Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi PJ, > > Can the uploaded session area for a viewer > > be optionally accessed by > > others at the viewer's discretion? > > It's possible, but not set up for that. Is there a reason that would > be necessary? I was thinking it might be nice to facilitate third party judging for establishing some sort of hit rates for individual viewers. With the data available other ways however, this is easily accomplished. In general I'm not inclined to push for extra features, as many experiments would require idiosyncratic customization and are better handled by the experimenter. I only considered the LST date/time/location fields due to their seemingly benign nature. I certainly wouldn't require someone to include any information. Scott Reply | Forward

#3985

From: "pjgaenir" Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:08 pm Subject: Re: The Galleries and practice pjgaenir Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hiya Scott, > I was thinking it might be nice to > facilitate third party judging for > establishing some sort of hit rates > for individual viewers. Well originally this was the plan for at least one part of the project. The problem is that in order to do this with any degree of success, the target pool has to be VERY carefully vetted. Any decent science in RV starts with the targets. Attempting to do judging in RV based on mostly novice viewers in a casual situation with a high- bandwidth target pool, is IMO unlikely to establish anything about or for RV, except that--as we already know--that's not the way to go about it. Using what amounts to a non-scientific approach that violates many important areas of an ideal protocol (for more than one reason) would if anything be downright unfair to science itself. And the viewers too, since if the goal was to get as good a score as possible, this would not be the way we'd go about it. The Galleries are built to support viewer experience and community; not science. That isn't just about what database field exists; it's an entire philosophy that if different would change the way we went about everything there I imagine. Best regards, PJ

// 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