what makes anyone who thinks they are a remote viewer or psychic believe they are actually doing anything other than making things up in their
If you learn something about legit RV -- as opposed to what is 'sold as that' sometimes on the radio and internet -- you'll find that remote
viewing protocol involves "feedback". Although some targets will lack it, the RV protocol builds in feedback as an assumption because without "a
hard answer" to compare to the data, you have no idea whether people are really 'viewing remotely' (well, 'sensing' being a better word), or just
imagining things or what.
In RV, the idea is that a person gets something unrelated to the target except as a key -- such as a random number, green light, the word 'go',
whatever -- and they record their impressions. Critically important is "the doubleblind" (soloblind if they are working alone): that they have no
knowledge of the nature or detail of the target intended, and they have NO physiological exposure in any form during the session to anybody who does
know that. Otherwise chances are they are using a lot of body-senses (below the conscious level) and not "psi". Psi is kind of a 'warehouse word'
that means 'everything we don't have a physical explanation for' which means anything known to science as a way to acquire data must be controlled
for; the RV protocol evolves as science learns more, to exclude more.
Once the data is 'secured' (so it can't be changed), in practice or science, the 'real' target (feedback) is revealed so the viewer sees the
'real' answer and just maybe learns something about what they might have done wrong. (This is as much an 'interpretation' and 'communication'
art as a psychic art.)
Then the feedback (the real answer) is compared to the data to see how right/wrong/other it was. At that point you can evaluate "whether or not a
remote viewing took place" or to what degree.
If the data is wrong/offtarget, then you can't really say it was a 'remote viewing'; it could be free association or anything else.
Any target that does not have feedback, you do NOT know that the data is even 'psychic'. Not until there is feedback to judge it by. If someone goes
on the radio and tells you how the world is going to end, that's their opinion, it may or may not be supported by psi, it may or may not (more
likely) be supported by insanity or marketing chutzpah, but it isn't supported by 'remote viewing' until feedback occurs and secured data can be
compared to hard reality. IF it's accurate, THEN you can say -- if there was no known physiological way for them to get that data (or enough data to
guess that based on) -- that a remote viewing took place and the data appears to be sourced via psi.
Obviously this is different for 'psychic' work which does not have the 'remote viewing' attribution; remote viewing is a science-based protocol
which is a set of controls to ensure the work is not error, fraud, etc. It might be wrong (eg imagination) but at least it isn't bogus as a process
if you see what I mean; the controls are not about psi, they're about ruling out everything-else except that.
Perhaps you "are" merely bipolar or psychotic or just a little out of touch with reality.
Well, plenty of people are, with or without psychic functioning.
Again, what use are these powers when you can't use them for anything that a roll of the dice couldn't do?
See above. But as for 'what use' they are; well, even aside from practical applications, it's a sort of shamanic path of personal development -- I
recommend we don't get into that area since you're not going to grok it -- but as an analogy that might make more sense to you, I play guitar, and
so far, it has not saved a single person's life. It doesn't even make me money at the moment. In fact there is not a single useful thing that can be
said about my playing guitar except that I enjoy it. I think even if that's all there were to something like remote viewing, that would still make it
an art equal to anything else. Most arts do not have "must save the world to count" attached to their validity. ;-)
replying to: bandaidctrl
Well to be completely honest, maybe those who are truly gifted just don't care?
Right now, there are people starving in a small country Jane Smith has never heard of. Does she care? No. If you say, "Hey Jane. People are starving
in [obscurity]!" She'll think, "Bummer. How sad." But Jane can't personlly go feed all the people in that country; the problem is vastly bigger
than what she can deal with; so she'll deal with what she can and let the things she can't change go. So in summary: maybe they really don't care.
Not because they aren't compassionate but because they really can't touch/fix the situation so why stress.
There are so many factors that play into being able to "see" someone. To the comment about making stuff up in your head... that's something
a lot of viewers face on a regular basis, how do I know if this is all real, am I just shooting in the dark, is this REALLY what I see? Like I said
before, unless you're naturally talented with the ability for "seeing" it really is a hit and miss experience.
I agree except I think it's a hit and miss experience either way LOL. Even the best in the world are not always on-target, and even when they're on
target, not all their data is accurate.
One reason the RV protocol is really important shows up during the analytic segment of applications. The doubleblind ensures they haven't a clue to
the target, and if they are good enough to have fairly specific data, someone who does know the target reading that data can usually get a good idea
if they are on or off target.
If they managed to well describe the target 'context', pulling that info out of a hat the size of 'the universe', then there's a good chance
something they said may have validity too. If they are not describing anything that looks like it fits in the context of the target at all, well, file
13 and move on.
Without the doubleblind, everything a psychic provides sounds like it could be accurate. They fit the data into the context.
Those that aren't as talented are always welcome to try, but they are also the ones that voice their findings the loudest, and when they're
wrong, society (or the media) takes it upon themselves to judge every psychic, gifted or not, as a crackpot.
[edit on 10-3-2009 by RedCairo]