Remote viewing.Is it possible? Pages 1 2 NEXT | |
Available evidence says "no." | |
/thread No, but seriously, got proof? Scientific studies would be great. Circumstantial evidence is still better than nothing. Testimonials... aren't. Either way, I'm welcome to evidence that this stuff works, but seeing as the army shut down its division after about 5 years of most likely fruitless testing, it probably doesn't work. | |
Possible, but highly improbable. It's possible that eventually we'll see scientific evidence that Remote Viewing is a real thing. Until such a time, I remain highly skeptical to the point of laughter. | |
Dear OP, you could significantly improve this thread by adding something that remotely resembles 'proof' or 'evidence', or at least an interesting anecdote. Just a hint! The military never abandoned the projects. They just made it Top Secret.
Captcha; dream big | |
ESP? | |
Remote viewing? No. I'm pretty damn good at working with remote sensing though. So good, people have actually tried to kill me for it. (bonus points to whom can figure out the two references based on my post history) | |
It was the subject on coast to coast just wanted opinions. | |
Dear sir, you could significantly improve your comment by adding something that remotely resembles 'proof' or 'evidence' that the military never abandoned the projects and made them top secret | |
Dear sir, I'd like to make screenshots while remote viewing military complexes, but I haven't got Fraps installed. Sorry. But I think you should be responding here -> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.354690-There-are-no-Atheists :) | |
And mine was just a quote from an old Scooby Doo episode :) | |
Eh, everything is possible in the vaguest sense, including Solipsism (which is why I don't like to deal in what's "possible", it's a useless question). | |
Oh look. Its you. http://www.skepdic.com/randi.html If paranormal powers were randomly bred into people someone would be a VERY rich and VERY happy ruler of manking right now. Shame they dont exist. There are MANY rewards just like this in basically every first/second world country. Not. A. Single. Claim. Has. Won. Out of MANY claims. ALL the applicant has to do is pass a test in front of scientists and change the world. The applicant even decides the test and the scientist agree if it shows a true display of super natural ability. EVERYONE has failed. EVER. | |
In an absolute sense, we can't prove a negative, so it's possible. In a general, day to day sense, it's a silly idea. | |
I really hate when people commit this fallacy like this: It is perfectly possible to prove a negative. "I am not a mushroom. Evidence: I am a human and humans are not mushroom." There, done. It is perfectly possible to prove certain universal negatives, such as some statements of logic. It is even doable, if tad inconvenient, to prove ESP doesn't happen with humans. You just need to define what ESP is supposed to achieve, and then test every human for the ability. If on the other hand you're talking of absolute absolute proof, then we cannot disprove solipsism. On that level, we're so far removed from every day events though, that talking of proof almost loses meaning. | |
More or less, yeah. If someone says that they can remote view (or are a mushroom), I'm goign to say they are wrong. If it's part of their religion, say, that they are, then I have to accept (or at least not deny) the possibility that they are correct. | |
I respectfully disagree with that. Religion, only by virtue of being called such, does not and ought not to get a free pass from 'impossible' to 'maybe'. That requires evidence. I do not care if someone says they are psychic, and someone says their religious doctrine states they are psychic. It is the exact same claim, but the other is veiled under the fallacious expectation of respecting one's religion. Do not get me wrong, I respect people's right to their beliefs. However, that does not mean I have to respect their beliefs, since beliefs do not transform reality. Beliefs, or my respect (or lack of it) have nothing to do with determining the truth or falsity of their claims. If a Young Earth creationist and an atheist come to me and both say they believe the Earth is flat and 6000 years old, I'll call them both equally batshit insane and plain factually wrong. People have a right to their beliefs. They do not have the right to not be called insane for holding insane beliefs. Much like free speech: You have the right to state your opinions. You do not have the right of anyone listening or agreeing with you, or escaping the consequences. | |
maybe but only via a bug like micro drone with a video camera and a microphone i mean if you wanna talk odds i'd know where my chips would be | |
What did those scientific studies find? Do you use your avatar image sincerely or ironically? Because the person who made it has no idea what either Atheism or the Big Bang really are. | |
I haven't seen anything that convinces me that ESP is possible or that it exists. Both the Russians and the Americans threw a ton of money into ESP research during the Cold War - and they got nothing out of it. The "psychics" were asked to draw the locations and the surroundings of several places and agents - their results were no better than random chance, which proves they were just guessing. Sometimes they'd guess accurately, but they could never demonstrate any accuracy better than chance, so they didn't have any powers (or at least, no powers worth using). I don't exactly know if ESP exists or not, but I doubt it does and I haven't seen or heard of anything that would change my mind as of yet. | |
There's no evidence to suggest it is. | |
Ed Dames is a nutbag. Did you know he "remote viewed" satan? And Mars? And found that there is currently an alien civilization on Mars? If they did not note him on the show Major Ed Dames is apparently the man that was part of the US government investigation into remote viewing. And if you find this sort of thing amusing you should totally watch the movie Men Who Stare At Goats. It'll give you a pretty good idea of what "remote viewing" is. I've listened to plenty of Coast to Coast. Most of the people on there are total nutbags. Its not completely a waste of time. They have some interesting skeptics and historians on occasionally. Michio Kaku is on sometimes and slightly batty but not a nutbag per se. And nutbags can be very entertaining, I wish I had taped the show when they interviewed Troy Hurtubise the guy who invented the "bearsuit". The show was a whole hell of a lot better when Art Bell ran it. | |
You used positive proof. Not negative proof. That's the problem. There is no such thing as negative proof except in mathematics. | |
I think I know the answer, not gonna spoil for anyone else though :P OT: No, remote sensing does not happen. | |
Proving a negative does not require negative proof, last time I checked. Only positive proof for a negative statement. After all, if a statement X is proven, and statement X is negative, it follows that a negative has been proven. And if we are talking of proof in relation to mathematics, then to be fair there is no proof outside of mathematics - only reasonable degrees of evidence. Hence my statement regarding solipsism. | |
You don't understand. You did not "prove" that "you are not a mushroom" you "proved" that "you are a human". It is technically only an assumption that since you are a "human" you are not a "mushroom" since as far as our knowledge carries us there are not "human mushrooms". Pragmatically speaking we leave it at that and do not harbour concerns that you may in fact be a Goomba but technically speaking it has not actually been "proven". | |
Except these are one and the same.
Incorrect. It is not an assumption. We know what mushrooms are. We know what humans are. The existance of a being that can be biologically both is an impossibility, as one either has the characteristics of one or the either. The categories are mutually exclusive. One might as well ask for a bird ape. Or indeed, crocodile duck.
Wrong. We know the definition of a human. We know the definition of a mushroom. We do not need to examine all of creation to know that the categories do not overlap. | |
Yeah 20 million dollars worth of research into the possibility of remote viewing came to the conclusion that remote viewing was not possible. That's a pretty strong argument. | |
Yes, actually you do need to examine all of "creation", past present and future, to "know" that the categories do not overlap. Anything less you are simply making an assumption based on limited knowledge. edit: It is not in any way incorrect to make assumptions based on limited knowledge, but it is incorrect to treat it as more than that. | |
We as humans only use around 20-22% of the capacity for our brains. If geniuses, such as Einstein were able to use 23%, just 1% more and look at how that has advanced our theories regarding the speed of light and quantnum physics, wouldn't something as far fetched as telepathy or remote viewing have a possibility of being realised? The truth is, we don't know. We know so little about so much of the Human Brain that there are procedures that we've discovered that work in "unknown ways", to quote from a recent Website I was looking at for research on neurodegenerative diseases. As we progress further into the future, with greater advancements in technology, we will soon be able to know more about ourselves, the functions of the Brain, and the infinite possibilities a 100% capacity Brain (If this becomes possible) would give us. Just because we try something now and fail doesn't mean that we won't try it again in the future and succeed. | |
Randi isn't a scientist though, and neither does he publish his findings for peer review. What Randi is, is a showman and magician, which is fine when presenting his experiments as entertainment but as serious science, no. So where do we look if there's no peer-reviewed journals, the military? As has been said in this thread, just one example with years of research and millions spent would imply that it's a subject worthy of a deeper look and not to be shrugged off so lightly. Even more so when the military states "a statistically significant effect has been observed in the laboratory". Not that I believe in all these claims but there's a lot to be said for confirmation bias and dismissing everything out of hand. | |
But it doesn't matter. Think about this for a moment. Who does Randi call when someone decides to go up to the challenge? Well, other than his producer. The scientists in the field in question. At that point, his credentials don't matter at all. That said, the sheer fact that nobody has ever won a challenge which should be incredibly simple for a million dollars says a lot.
Citation needed. | |
| |
They produced a few vague claims of succes, always in retrospect, and very questionable. They claimed for instance to have predicted the release of a hostage, and his medical condition, but what they said was along the lines of "One side of him hurts, and he will be on an aeroplane". That covers about half the world's population at any moment in time, but it didn't stop the so-called psychics from claiming succes. That's how those conmen operate. Guesswork, background research and sometimes a little body language reading, and then they search in what happened instead for an event that fits their vague bullshit claims, and claim they predicted it. | |
| Pages 1 2 NEXT | |
Remote viewing.Is it possible?
Remote viewing is the practice of seeking impressions about a distant or unseen target using paranormal means in particular extra sensory perception ESP or "sensing with mind". Scientific studies have been conducted, some earlier, less sophisticated experiments produced positive results.Remote viewing was popularized in the 1990s, following the declassification of documents related to the Stargate Project, a $20 million research program sponsored by the U.S. Federal Government to determine any potential military application of psychic phenomena. The program was eventually terminated in 1995.