Breakthrough in understanding reality (The Farsight Institute) - page 3.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:36:18 PM

Quote from: bb113 on December 05, 2012, 06:20:54 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:18:55 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on December 05, 2012, 06:10:52 PM

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.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:46:37 PM

They use a naturally grown one, which is your body Wink

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

interlagos

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

Quote from: myrkul on December 05, 2012, 06:45:13 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:36:18 PM

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 Wink

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:36:18 PM

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

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

Quote from: organofcorti on December 05, 2012, 06:30:59 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:18:55 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on December 05, 2012, 06:10:52 PM

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.

interlagos

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

Quote from: bb113 on December 05, 2012, 06:20:54 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:18:55 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on December 05, 2012, 06:10:52 PM

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

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:18:55 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on December 05, 2012, 06:10:52 PM

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.

Quote from: bb113 on December 05, 2012, 06:20:54 PM

How is the success of a result measured?

That, too.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:18:55 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on December 05, 2012, 06:10:52 PM

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?

interlagos

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

Quote from: organofcorti on December 05, 2012, 06:10:52 PM

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

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: organofcorti on December 05, 2012, 06:10:52 PM

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?

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

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.

yogi

legendary

Activity: 947

Merit: 1042

Hamster ate my bitcoin

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.

interlagos

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

Quote from: BR0KK on December 05, 2012, 05:32:54 PM

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

--> Its getting interesting .... Tongue

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.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: BR0KK on December 05, 2012, 05:32:54 PM

--> Its getting interesting .... Tongue

BR0KK

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

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

--> Its getting interesting .... Tongue

interlagos

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

Quote from: BR0KK on December 05, 2012, 05:25:23 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:42:24 AM

Quote from: Roger_Murdock on December 05, 2012, 06:29:48 AM

How secure is Bitcoin vis-a-vis attempts to remote view someone else's private keys? Is this something the development team is working on?

That's a great question!
I've always wondered this myself.
Even brain-wallet won't help much against remote-viewing "attack"

The answer that Ed Dames found when attempting to remote view some russian spy was that there are guardian angels that would prevent any unauthorized access to the information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQrAG0ZgWe0

aahhhhh crop cycles..... now i understand

He talks about relevant stuff at 2:13

BR0KK

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:42:24 AM

Quote from: Roger_Murdock on December 05, 2012, 06:29:48 AM

How secure is Bitcoin vis-a-vis attempts to remote view someone else's private keys? Is this something the development team is working on?

That's a great question!
I've always wondered this myself.
Even brain-wallet won't help much against remote-viewing "attack"

The answer that Ed Dames found when attempting to remote view some russian spy was that there are guardian angels that would prevent any unauthorized access to the information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQrAG0ZgWe0

aahhhhh crop cycles.....angels exist...... dogs that quack like ducks... now i understand 0_o

interlagos

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

Quote from: BR0KK on December 04, 2012, 06:16:01 PM

Predicting the future is now called remote viewing :/ ?

There is no such thing as prediction of the future in the model described in OP because everything that can be already is. It's a matter of perceiving only those "bands" of reality that interact with you via constructive interference and that process solely depends on your frequency pattern.

So the point of this whole realization is that you ultimately determine what reality you observe.

the_thing

sr. member

Activity: 546

Merit: 252

Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Network

Quote from: organofcorti on December 05, 2012, 06:43:48 AM

Is this one of dank's sockies?

Doubt it.
Dank's posts are not this long and coherent and usually contain more bullshit per letter.

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Is this one of dank's sockies?

Topic: Breakthrough in understanding reality (The Farsight Institute) - page 3. (Read 5424 times)