[ Back ]
From: lian sidorov
Date: 12/28/2000
Time: 7:53:39 PM
Remote Name: 207.144.212.60
On of the more intriguing issues regarding anomalous cognition phenomena is, in my opinion, the specificity of the target-object channel (see my Dec.1st, 2000 post on Quantum-Mind, "Orch-OR, meditation and the nature of self"). Here is the crux of the problem: how does one brain in the context of a telepathy or remote viewing experiment lock into the assigned target, as opposed to other images/ideas that are being transmitted around the globe at approximately the same time, with about the same intensity of focus? (the question becomes even more baffling when we consider evidence that the delay in transmission/reception and the target-subject distance make practically no difference.)
Does the mind actually pinpoint geographical coordinates in the case of a RV scenario? Even if such an arbitrary grid made sense in the language of anomalous cognition, coordinates are not always given. Then is it a matter of the target's "cognitive signature"? (see the above-mentioned post) And if it is a matter of cognitive signature, do previously established connections with an inanimate target, or between sender/transmitter, act as a path of least resistance ("quantum entanglement"), facilitating signal synchronization/stabilization? Are there highly resonant pathways created between people (or between people and objects) that have spent a long time together?
Listed below are some experimental sketches aimed at addressing these questions:
1. Human versus computer target choice:
Have two target images, identical except for one detail (i.e. same background, but one image showing a triangle, the other a square) chosen at the same time, in the same room - one by a computer, the other by a human participant. The images could be chosen blindly from a pack of cards and generated randomly by the computer - but the entire target pool should show the same characteristics. Let the remote viewing subject be in another room, and see which of the two images is more readily detected. This can be varied to involve free-response or forced-choice targets, and the human participant should be known to the subject in one series of tests, and unknown in others.Time-delayed "readings" may also be taken and compared with real-time session effect size. Also, the image should be unknown to the participant, so as to avoid confusion between remote viewing and telepathy effects. The results are recorded by a camera and tabulated at a later date by an independent (third) observer, without feedback to the participants.
2. 2 senders - 1 receiver telepathy experiment
Have 2 senders transmit very similar images (same criteria as above). In one experiment, one sender is known to the receiver, the other is not (the senders could be previously "calibrated" for telepathic ability with another "receiver", and chosen so that both show approximately the same ability). Run a series of tests and see whose images are more readily received (free response targets are recommended).
Variations of this experiment can include images/objects that are known to the receiver versus neutral ones; or having two senders focus their thoughts on the receiver (one sender being very familiar to the receiver, the other only an acquaintance), while having the receiver guess their identity; etc
3. target context
Have one remote viewing subject and two cards: one flashed randomly on a blank computer screen, the other flashed just as randomly on a computer screen background showing pictures with which the subject is familiar. All else being equal, does the mind seem to become more stabilized/attracted by familiar information, before proceding to look for new data associated with it?
4. target proximity
I don't know if this experiment has been run, but it would be interesting to see (assuming one can compensate for all other factors such as geomagnetic field activity) if a target located in an adjacent room is more readily identified than one located kilometers away. The images would be flashed simultaneously by computers and otherwise conform to the standards described above.
5. Finally, an experiment that does not involve competitive signals, but hypothesized field-like effects:
Take two subjects who have shown good telepathic ability, isolate them in a Faraday chamber (or equivalent), and measure the EM field between them both during attempted transmission and after (it is suggested that alternating 15 minutes intervals be used for transmission and rest, then the runs averaged over a period of several hours, so that extraneous sources of EM disturbance can be assumed to affect the transmission/rest periods equally). Is there no difference in the average EM activity between these states? Or can we hope to notice changes in the absorption/radiation of gamma or other ranges of the EM spectrum, as M.S. Benford seems to have found in the vicinity of those involved in tough healing (see "Spin Doctors" in the Alternative Medicine archive). Could there be similarities in the mental/physiological states involved in these two processes?
(As a VERY far-fetched aside - how about measuring gravitational field activity too? If Penrose is right, we might be able to postulate some interesting spacetime "reorganization" in the process, and possibly minute gravitational ripples. And while we're on the subject, why not throw levitation into it? Just joking... )
As always, if you have any ideas or are aware of previous studies concerning these proposed factors, please feel free to post your comments.