In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected.
Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow.
She says: “Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established.
“The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments.” Of course, this doesn’t wash with sceptical scientists.
Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.
Thus, a prominent skeptic agrees that (1) the study of remote viewing is an area of science, which should thoroughly obviate the skeptical epithet of “pseudoscience” once and for all. And (2) that when judged against prevailing scientific standards for evaluating evidence, he agrees that remote viewing is proven. The follow-on argument that this phenomenon is so unusual that it requires more evidence refers not to evidence per se, or even to scientific methods or practice, but to assumptions about the fabric of reality.
"
For anyone interested in RV – check out the huge amount of information regarding Ingo Swann :¬)
Derren – awesome artwork, by the way.
Aha, you read my mind! Nice one. A range of thoughts on the subject. And along the lines of, is there or isn’t there a god? We can’t prove it really and we can’t really disprove it. It’s an odd one, but a goodie. Anyone up on Einstein, Walker, Bohm, Bell, Aspect? Happy reading. Happy mindfeck!
Oh *dear*..
“Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.”
Isn’t that the exact opposite of agreeing?
If they are correct 34% of the time, what exactly are they viewing for the other 66%? Porn?
There you go then, theres the proof! 34% accurate! That’s how accurate I am with a sniper rifle, a figure way beyond what chance my feeble arms would allow. I wonder if that professor, would allow me to shoot an apple balanced on her head?
So what are the stats for chance guessing?
never pay attention to western science in such matters … completely useless … ask a yogi
Well I’m viewing this page remotely, so…
I’m on the other side of the world, yet I can still see that this research is a load of rubbish. Is that statement paradoxical?
Any references you care to cite for this?
Right, 1M$ from Randi’s foundation’s still waiting. Go ahead Remote Viewers!
yay 4 Prof Wiseman!
Of course, one statistician’s opinion of one experiment isn’t enough; the great thing about science is how verifiable & independently repeatable it is! I suspect that further tests will bear this significance out & all the remote viewers will be vindicated; isn’t it nice how truth prevails?
…wait that hasn’t happened? I wonder why not. Hrm…
All this mention of Richard Wiseman makes me wonder if the simple design on Friday will actually be a box.
Skepticism doesn’t mean a closed mind, in fact I’d say being a skeptic required being open-minded until we receive the info that proves a point either way. But scientists are human and they have their own belief system and agenda – even Richard – and many ideas have no doubt been filed throughout the years under ‘bonkers’ or ‘hurts my brain too much to think about it’ or ‘will prove eminent men wrong’. Maybe we need to dust them off and have a wee look again? Maybe human consciousness is the hidden variable in quantum physics. Maybe our reality is in the mind of whomever is measuring that reality. Brainpower can be used to move things on a computer screen – my brother is a games designer and a skeptic and he’s tried it and it worked. Thought is just an energy that causes a reaction. ctnd
Maybe we have many of the pieces to the jigsaw already, we just have to make an exponential leap? Combine classical with quantum? Add the ingredient that is consciousness? Is the universe a hologram and each particle and sub atomical part a piece of it, reflecting/carrying every single thing within the universe? Look what we can build from the smallest spec of DNA – why shouldn’t we believe that even the smallest particle can replicate endlessly – or even imitate? Waves of energy form when events happen (is this why you called it the Events – a far bigger concept than we imagined?) – couldn’t we learn to tune ourselves to these wavelengths? Or if we can use folded space and we don’t know it yet. Maybe we can even burrow wormholes and we don’t know it yet? We just don’t know it yet.
Then again, I’m sure Derren has all the answers. But may not tell them all. And will no doubt pepper in some confusion so that our brains hurt a wee bit more. So, when you gonna finish off the theory of relativity?
JK – scepticism has often been the driver to produce evidence that proves an at-the-time ‘bonkers’ theory. A good example being Pietsch’s somewhat gruesome mashing of salamander brains to prove that memory is not local to specific portions of the brain (holographic, anyone?). The same experiment was inflicted upon mice, with similar results.
I would *love* to see the meta-analysis that lead to the conclusions of Prof Utts.
Surprise, surprise. Richard Wiseman doesn’t believe in remote viewing. Does he believe in quantum entanglement? Perhaps he can explain why that is proven fact (see bells inequality) yet he once again (along with Richard Dawkins) talks as though he has some higher level of perception than the rest of us. I’m as smart as you, and guess what I believe in it.
@ Ross – Hmmm, I know. I think skeptics are always wondering and I want to be wondering till I die. Cosy’s nice for Friday nights in front of the TV – though that’s not the case with Derren Brown busting our heads! And to think – just for a minute – I thought Derren was about to take the easy way out and diss the whole thing as bunkum. Silly me. That might be what will eventually come out of Friday night, but it will be after a journey of weighing things up I suspect. Who’d have thought he would even bring up the whole wisdom of crowds thing? Getting soft in your old age, Derren? We are all maths no doubt, but we do not yet fully know everything about logic or randomness. And we have only begun to factor in consciousness. And even that surely must all be relative – depending on whose it is
@ Ross – And my brains are currently in the same state as the lizard’s.
34% hmmm. It’s a good figure to suggest something.
The governement are probably building some super psychic system out of all this research you know, or maybe a super war weapon?
Hmm. *All* viewing is remote, unless one happens to have something tattooed on one’s eyelids.
Does light hit our brain at all? Or is it decoded first? Blimey, if we don’t need light, then surely our brains don’t worry about the speed of light… Then doesn’t that mean that information – which Einstein says can’t travel faster than the speed of light (without causality [still can't get to grips with the ins and outs]) can somehow get there or be there faster as there is no light anyway? Maybe it’s already there? Maybe we are just living something pre-programmed? Aaaaarrrrrgh! I’m sure my thoughts are all way too simplistic and someone on here will put my frayed mind at rest.
It’s easier just to believe in God.
I’m doing a lot of arguing with myself here, aren’t I? There’s a real tussle going on. Even if it doesn’t seem to be anything to do with remote reading, I promise it is.
Remote viewing even. I’ll get off here for a bit I think.
…Dribble…
The referenced report by Dr. Utts can be found here:
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/air.pdf
“The magnitude of psychic functioning exhibited appears to be in the range between what social
scientists call a small and medium effect. That means that it is reliable enough to be
replicated in properly conducted experiments, with sufficient trials to achieve the long-run
statistical results needed for replicability.”
@JayKay – “speed of light” is a bit of a misnomer… should be “speed of electromagnetic waves” – including micro and radio waves. And gamma radiation, i suppose.
Here’s an interesting theory (well, I think so, anyway)… whenever you make or break a circuit, or charge flows, it generates a small electromagnetic wave. In your brain, when synapses fire, multiple circuits are made and broken… and minuscule EM waves are broadcast, with a signature dependent on the synapse pattern.
Conductors also pick up EM waves, if they’re of a compatible frequency, so theoretically your synapses could act as aerials, picking up EM waves generated by identical synapse firings… if you could stop using them and detect the micro fluctuations of an incoming signal.
That’s just a theory though…
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen Derren do remote viewing, and he’s not psychic.
a 5 – 10% rate better than guessing and alot of those hits were broad and general. wasnt 1995 also the year that they stopped funding the research aswell?
@ thecolinrocks – ta. I will digest later – gotta get out the door – half an hr ago!
“The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments.”
Must be flaws in the analysis, then.
Paul H. Smith (retired Army intelligence officer who teaches remote viewing) explains WHAT IS REMOTE VIEWING? at http://tinyurl.com/mkxmzd
Well, I myself dont see it as not possible .. but I o think that those who do have the capacity are in a way different than the standard .. (obvious ..).. Is it viewing you might wonder .. or do they telepathically connect to smeone else psyche or energy structure/system. Or do they connect via the sensing mode inside ..
Does there need to be a special connection between viewer and transmitter? Both ways? Do both sides know about this connection or only viewer/senser? Is it completely voluntary or did they start to work with something that was not normal inside of theirselves while socializing?
33%? Í myself dont find that hight, although . when it is about pictures/scenes .. then it is quite high. It is not just a matter of yes and no or checking via asking questions(or do they?)
Ofcourse, self experience is the best proof ever (multiple and tested).
Also .maybe it is not the true self that view and transmit ..another brain part .another self .Maybe it is the disorder on the outside that hides the other disorder on the inside .although the outside may not have been seen by the viewer/transmitter as an disorder .. as they see to eachother in the back quite simple .. but that’ the real self even further in the back may not be noticed the remote viewing experience will not truely work out the way the transmitter would have wanted it to work.
Anyhow ..I’d love to hear/read the description of how it works from those who do claim that they are capeable of remote viewing. To get inside of their system .. observe .. and experience why and what triggers it.
What if it is about the hyperstatic (very up system without the normal brain structure/pattern that forms normally the bases ..), a bit as being in love .. shinier world (literally as your brain (not all) gets triggered differently and your senses work different as well and you will see people way different .. brown eyes become blue and vice versa etc. What if you start to connect from this state from a distance to people’s selfes … not the ones in the back .. but their normal selfes … Can we see them then ? And the location etc.?
And can it be that it is for everybody different .. that we all need to find, if we want that, our own capacities, which might not be in the same system, as we are all different.
Yes, interesting it remains ..
Hang on – one person who knows a bit about statistics (hired by the US govt presumably hunting for something to show for its $20 million) believes in it, so therefore the legions of other equally-qualified people are all truth-deniers?! And you’ve taken this from someone’s blog which spouts nonsense about the paranormal, which in turn is quoting an article in the DAILY MAIL for goodness sake??!! Have you gone mad or has someone hacked into your website?!!!
- Calm down Tanya – it’s just a bit of fun petal. We love poking fun at that clever git RW, he made a right monkey out of me! – Phillis
@Dan – yes I think the above is missing a key bit from the source article where Richard Wiseman gives a (qualified) acknowledgement that it has been proven:
–
He says: “I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.
–
So he sort of agrees, but sort of doesn’t. Presumably this is similar to the dead fish that responds to pictures of humans under an MRI? Test enough crazy things and you’ll eventually get some crazy correlations?
ffs Remote Viewing is a SCIENTIFIC PROTOCOL. It is not synonymous with ‘being psychic’. If the protocol is not adhered to (as in Derren’s experiment) then it is NOT remote viewing. Period. It’s exasperating reading all these posts when 99% of people’s knowledge of the subject is half-arsed at best.
What makes this entire discussion/thread ever so slightly laughable is that you are all approx a couple of hours’ personal experimentation away from realising that remote viewing is utterly possible.
Get a friend to place a photograph of a place, object or thing in an envelope. Make sure they give you ZERO clues about what it is. Sit down somewhere quiet with pen and paper, clear your mind, focus on task, record impressions. Check photo when done. Practice.
Or just keep mocking….
@ Marv – Can you explain the scientific protocol thing to me? I’m really in 2 minds about this and think it would be easy to discount it, yet having read up on a few mind blowing theories, I can also see how thee inexplicable things could possibly be explained. And I don’t mean explained by merely showing that false positives occur – I mean by theories posed by Bohm etc. And I’m sure Derren will absolutely leave us dangling and in 2 minds after Friday’s show – because it is currently impossible to totally discount. Unless he has found a way to. The postings are deliberately provocative and they encourage us initially to draw hasty conclusions. But then the clever folks at Brown Towers post others which force us to rethink and to go and read up more. If you have experience of it, post it up
@thecolinrocks – Going back to your post, can you explain why the speed of light wouldn’t be relative here?
@JayKay
Ok mate, happy to oblige. Traditional ‘psychic’ readings occur with the ‘psychic’ (god I hate that word) knowing something about the info they are delving for…eg the name of your dead relative, the location of the murder, etc etc.
The term ‘Remote Viewing’ refers instead to a strict protocol in which the viewer knows NOTHING about the target. Ideally they won’t even know who the person who picked the target IS. All they will get are some co-ordinate numbers (eg 1234 5679) and be told to describe the target. That’s it.
The information they supply (usually employing a methodological approach designed to repress the ‘guessing’ conscious mind and access the subconscious instead) is then checked against the target to ascertain the degree of match or accuracy
Now as entertaining and fun as Derren’s experiment may be you see why the protocol has been breached and why it is thus not really ‘remote viewing’ per se. We know that the target is a 2D image (devilishly hard to remote view btw) on a large board covered in newspaper in a building somewhere. We have also most probably been subjected to various visual cues which will influence our sketch when we come to draw it. We have also discussed on these boards, with others, what it MIGHT be and what we think it may be.
In other words the RV protocol here is shot to the proverbial. Doesn’t stop it being a ggod crack, but there we go. Whatever floats yer boat.
Check out my site at http://www.thehomemadeviewer.com for more info if I haven’t already bored you to tears. : )
Best,
Marv
> never pay attention to western science in such matters … completely useless … ask a yogi
I did ask Yogi and he said “Scientists are cleverer than the average bear boo-boo…”
I and a friend set up a blind-box experiment one time following Ingo Swann’s description of the process and got, not exaggerating, 85-95% accuracy. Object size, shape, position and orientation on multiple objects, and even some characteristics unique to that object. Again, only did it one time, but would love to try it again.
Have someone select random objects, number undetermined, and secure in a closed cardboard box. Hang from ceiling. Have someone else try to “see” and draw the objects — WITHOUT NAMING THEM TO THEMSELVES. (Not naming or describing is the only hard part.) You just might be as surprised as we were.
BTW, Carr is a fraud. Could tell as soon as he started describing what he was seeing. Can’t do that without adding so much distortion as to make the exercise futile.
Laura: A few questions. Were these drawings you produced accurate, or an approximation that you could then (after finding out what was in the box) link to the items you were supposed to be viewing? I.e., say one of the objects was a toy ball with Disney princesses on it, would the drawing then be a vaguely circular thing, or look like a ball with humanoid figures on it?
If the former, I’d put that down to chance. If the latter, I suggest you do a few more trials to see whether you can produce these results consistently, call the local paper or tv station to get a ‘media presence’, and apply for the JREF Million Dollar Challenge. Because if you CAN produce these results consistently and at the percentage you claim (much higher than chance), you WOULD win the prize.