Breakthrough in understanding reality (The Farsight Institute)

[interlagos]

uhhhh angels again.... spy stuff ...... things we can't describe .... no labels .... all so true ... not discussing with science.....

--> Its getting interesting ....

I know it sounds a bit non-scientific, but he used the term "angels" only because it was the best representation in our language of phenomenon that he has come across during his research.
He originally called them "outside agencies".

From what I've learned independently "angels" are actually a part of the split that happens when you enter the physical reality. So the "angles" are actually a part of bigger YOU.
Your immediately aware consciousness is just a tip of the iceberg, there are other parts.

[yogi]

The concept of remote viewing was created by the U.S. military and was used as a form of information laundering for intelligence that was gathered by the early secret spy satellites.

[organofcorti]

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

[bb113]

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

LOL, as I've been ranting elsewhere, almost no modern "science" meets this definition. Whens the last time you saw an experiment actually try to confirm a theory rather than disprove a strawman null hypothesis?

[interlagos]

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

If you watch some of his other videos he invites everybody to review the data and duplicate the experiment.
He is definitely not alone and not the first one to perform remote viewing.

In fact even a "single" remote viewing experiment consists of multiple sessions performed by several individuals and each session is given a weight based on the clarity of the results.
The overall outcome of the experiment is determined as success only if enough sessions independently demonstrate the same result. So it sounds like scientific method to me.

[bb113]

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

If you watch some of his other videos he invites everybody to review the data and duplicate the experiment.
He is definitely not alone and not the first one to perform remote viewing.

In fact even a "single" remote viewing experiment consists of multiple sessions performed by several individuals and each session is given a weight based on the clarity of the results.
The overall outcome of the experiment is determined as success only if enough sessions independently demonstrate the same result. So it sounds like scientific method to me.

How is the success of a result measured?

[organofcorti]

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

If you watch some of his other videos he invites everybody to review the data and duplicate the experiment.
He is definitely not alone and not the first one to perform remote viewing.

In fact even a "single" remote viewing experiment consists of multiple sessions performed by several individuals and each session is given a weight based on the clarity of the results.
The overall outcome of the experiment is determined as success only if enough sessions independently demonstrate the same result. So it sounds like scientific method to me.

Assuming he's not a charlatan, his (and others') results are valid only if adequate controls are in place. In almost all papers I've read that have attempted to prove something that would completely rewrite known science, there is some variable that's not being controlled. A good recent example is the FTL neutrino claim.

How is the success of a result measured?

That, too.

[interlagos]

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

If you watch some of his other videos he invites everybody to review the data and duplicate the experiment.
He is definitely not alone and not the first one to perform remote viewing.

In fact even a "single" remote viewing experiment consists of multiple sessions performed by several individuals and each session is given a weight based on the clarity of the results.
The overall outcome of the experiment is determined as success only if enough sessions independently demonstrate the same result. So it sounds like scientific method to me.

How is the success of a result measured?

The procedures are quite rigid, they determine the properties of the target in a binary format (yes/no).
For example, is target man-made or natural? Is it solid or liquid/gas? and so on.

So if enough number of independent sessions converge to the same results, the experiment is considered successful.

You can watch this video as an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkr7pOWQZ0

[interlagos]

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

If you watch some of his other videos he invites everybody to review the data and duplicate the experiment.
He is definitely not alone and not the first one to perform remote viewing.

In fact even a "single" remote viewing experiment consists of multiple sessions performed by several individuals and each session is given a weight based on the clarity of the results.
The overall outcome of the experiment is determined as success only if enough sessions independently demonstrate the same result. So it sounds like scientific method to me.

Assuming he's not a charlatan, his (and others') results are valid only if adequate controls are in place. In almost all papers I've read that have attempted to prove something that would completely rewrite known science, there is some variable that's not being controlled. A good recent example is the FTL neutrino claim.

It's not about rewriting the current science.
It's more about resolving something that current science doesn't have an answer for.

[myrkul]

The procedures are quite rigid, they determine the properties of the target in a binary format (yes/no).
For example, is target man-made or natural? Is it solid or liquid/gas? and so on.

So, they use this?

[interlagos]

The procedures are quite rigid, they determine the properties of the target in a binary format (yes/no).
For example, is target man-made or natural? Is it solid or liquid/gas? and so on.

So, they use this?

They use a naturally grown one, which is your body

[myrkul]

They use a naturally grown one, which is your body

I see. So, these "studies" are just basically games of 20 questions. Gotcha.

[bb113]

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

If you watch some of his other videos he invites everybody to review the data and duplicate the experiment.
He is definitely not alone and not the first one to perform remote viewing.

In fact even a "single" remote viewing experiment consists of multiple sessions performed by several individuals and each session is given a weight based on the clarity of the results.
The overall outcome of the experiment is determined as success only if enough sessions independently demonstrate the same result. So it sounds like scientific method to me.

How is the success of a result measured?

The procedures are quite rigid, they determine the properties of the target in a binary format (yes/no).
For example, is target man-made or natural? Is it solid or liquid/gas? and so on.

So if enough number of independent sessions converge to the same results, the experiment is considered successful.

You can watch this video as an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkr7pOWQZ0

Their evidence is people agreeing with each other. Is there literature of some sort (not a book) that I can see.

[interlagos]

They use a naturally grown one, which is your body

I see. So, these "studies" are just basically games of 20 questions. Gotcha.

The procedures are quite rigid, they determine the properties of the target in a binary format (yes/no).
For example, is target man-made or natural? Is it solid or liquid/gas? and so on.

So if enough number of independent sessions converge to the same results, the experiment is considered successful.

You can watch this video as an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkr7pOWQZ0

Their evidence is people agreeing with each other. Is there literature of some sort (not a book) that I can see.

No, the evidence is that the converging result of the sessions matches the target in case if it's physically accessible after the fact. And of course you want to train yourself and demonstrate results on "easy" targets first.

I mostly gathered what I know from videos, so I cannot recommend any literature at the moment.
Will post later if I find something interesting.

[Roger_Murdock]

The video implies some knowledge of quantum physics and some understanding of wave-functions, but the concepts explained in the presentation itself are quite easy to grasp.
Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm5L8z34sNg

Clicking on the link is cheating. I recommend remotely-viewing the video. It's excellent! But a word of warning: it is DEFINITELY not safe for work - there is a surprising amount of nudity (although it's never gratuitous and always advances the narrative).   Oh, and Jennifer Lawrence does a great job as narrator.

[organofcorti]

No, the evidence is that the converging result of the sessions matches the target in case if it's physically accessible after the fact. And of course you want to train yourself and demonstrate results on "easy" targets first.

I mostly gathered what I know from videos, so I cannot recommend any literature at the moment.
Will post later if I find something interesting.

A keen enquiring mind is a good thing to have. However, keep in mind that converging results in experiments are only as strong as the experiment itself. If variables are not controlled for, you can end up with a false positive (or negative) result. This has occurred in every experiment I know in psychic abilities the had a positive result.

My guess is there is some such variable or some misunderstanding of statistics occurring here. I could be wrong so I look forward to your next posts on the subject.

[saddambitcoin]

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

I haven't watched this video but you should know that Controlled Remote Viewing has been confirmed in environments by Ingo Swann and others at the Stanford Research Institute during the 1970s if i recall correctly.

edit:  just read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann

[organofcorti]

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

I haven't watched this video but you should know that Controlled Remote Viewing has been confirmed in environments by Ingo Swann and others at the Stanford Research Institute during the 1970s if i recall correctly.

edit:  just read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann

Yeah, but nah. It doesn't sound like an experiment to me:

Remote Viewing

If someone could alter the field simply by looking at it, that would come even closer to the premise that each of us is imbedded in the field. An intriguing proof of this was provided by a machine built by physicists at Stanford called a SQUID, or superconducting quantum interference device. It’s enough for us to know that this device, which measures the possible activity of subatomic particles, specifically quarks, is very well shielded from all outside magnetic forces. This shielding begins with layers of copper and aluminum, but to insure that no outside force can affect the mechanism, exotic metals like niobium and “mu metal” wrap the inner core.

In 1972 a SQUID was installed in the basement of a laboratory at Stanford, apparently doing nothing except tracing out the same hill-and-valley S-curve on a length of graph paper. This curve represented the constant magnetic field of the earth; if a quark passed through the field the machine would register it by changes in the pattern being drawn. A young laser physicist named Hal Puthoff (later to become a noted quantum theorist) decided that aside from its main use, the SQUID would make a perfect test of psychic powers. Very few people, including the scientists at Sanford, knew the exact inner construction of the machine.

A letter Puthoff wrote in search of a psychic who would take up the challenge was responded to by Ingo Swann, a New York artist with psychic abilities. Swann was flown to California without being told in advance about either the test or the SQUID. When he first saw it, he seemed a bit distracted and baffled. But he agree to “look” inside the machine, and as he did, the S-curve on the graph paper changed pattern — something it almost never did — only to go back to its normal functioning as soon as Swann stopped paying attention to it.

A startled Puthoff asked him to repeat this, so for 45 seconds Swann concentrated upon seeing the inside of the machine, and for exactly that interval the recoding device drew a new pattern, a long plateau on the paper instead of hills and valleys. Swann then drew a sketch of what he saw as the inner workings of the SQUID, and when these were checked with an expert, they perfectly matched the actual construction. Swann was vague about whether he had changed the magnetic input that the machine was built to measure; he offered that he thought he was affecting its niobium core. But it also turned out that if he merely thought about the SQUID, not trying to change it at all, the recording device showed alterations in the surrounding magnetic field. In the years since 1972, many other experiments in remote viewing have successfully taken place.

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-great-afterlife-debate/

The above is not an experiment. There was no aim, no replication, no determination of extraneous variables. Just a scientist and a psychic artist futzing with a machine that at least one of them didn't understand.

[saddambitcoin]

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

I haven't watched this video but you should know that Controlled Remote Viewing has been confirmed in environments by Ingo Swann and others at the Stanford Research Institute during the 1970s if i recall correctly.

edit:  just read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann

Yeah, but nah. It doesn't sound like an experiment to me:

Remote Viewing

If someone could alter the field simply by looking at it, that would come even closer to the premise that each of us is imbedded in the field. An intriguing proof of this was provided by a machine built by physicists at Stanford called a SQUID, or superconducting quantum interference device. It’s enough for us to know that this device, which measures the possible activity of subatomic particles, specifically quarks, is very well shielded from all outside magnetic forces. This shielding begins with layers of copper and aluminum, but to insure that no outside force can affect the mechanism, exotic metals like niobium and “mu metal” wrap the inner core.

In 1972 a SQUID was installed in the basement of a laboratory at Stanford, apparently doing nothing except tracing out the same hill-and-valley S-curve on a length of graph paper. This curve represented the constant magnetic field of the earth; if a quark passed through the field the machine would register it by changes in the pattern being drawn. A young laser physicist named Hal Puthoff (later to become a noted quantum theorist) decided that aside from its main use, the SQUID would make a perfect test of psychic powers. Very few people, including the scientists at Sanford, knew the exact inner construction of the machine.

A letter Puthoff wrote in search of a psychic who would take up the challenge was responded to by Ingo Swann, a New York artist with psychic abilities. Swann was flown to California without being told in advance about either the test or the SQUID. When he first saw it, he seemed a bit distracted and baffled. But he agree to “look” inside the machine, and as he did, the S-curve on the graph paper changed pattern — something it almost never did — only to go back to its normal functioning as soon as Swann stopped paying attention to it.

A startled Puthoff asked him to repeat this, so for 45 seconds Swann concentrated upon seeing the inside of the machine, and for exactly that interval the recoding device drew a new pattern, a long plateau on the paper instead of hills and valleys. Swann then drew a sketch of what he saw as the inner workings of the SQUID, and when these were checked with an expert, they perfectly matched the actual construction. Swann was vague about whether he had changed the magnetic input that the machine was built to measure; he offered that he thought he was affecting its niobium core. But it also turned out that if he merely thought about the SQUID, not trying to change it at all, the recording device showed alterations in the surrounding magnetic field. In the years since 1972, many other experiments in remote viewing have successfully taken place.

http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/the-great-afterlife-debate/

The above is not an experiment. There was no aim, no replication, no determination of extraneous variables. Just a scientist and a psychic artist futzing with a machine that at least one of them didn't understand.

and with time they developed a protocol for Controlled Remote Viewing that was used by the military for training...idk i don't really give a fuck if you believe it or not i'm just trying to help you

[BR0KK]

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

If you watch some of his other videos he invites everybody to review the data and duplicate the experiment.
He is definitely not alone and not the first one to perform remote viewing.

In fact even a "single" remote viewing experiment consists of multiple sessions performed by several individuals and each session is given a weight based on the clarity of the results.
The overall outcome of the experiment is determined as success only if enough sessions independently demonstrate the same result. So it sounds like scientific method to me.

nope he's explicitly excluding all major sciences. Cause its toooo "new age" to discus wuff .. quack quack.....

It's not about rewriting the current science.
It's more about resolving something that current science doesn't have an answer for.

Ohhhh suddenly someone claims to have the answer to everything and anything.... Stop all acknowledged sience efforts.... he's serious so he must have a point .... lets head that way.... And don't forget your torches, pickaxes and pitchforks !

You can watch this video as an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkr7pOWQZ0

life on mars ... ..... secret war weapons in irak .. oh.... they an be false sometime but letz get in there anyway cause were 'mericanns are always true.... energy on mars .... artificial structures .... pictures of the inside ot that structure....  Black military projects..... flights that i personally don't know jack about it must be some sort of secret black mars mission..... Why isn't anybody telling me anything ima a proper scientist ;::