|
|
|
|
Pilot Study in RV Target Attractors
I. RATIONALE
There are two questions we are trying to address in this study:
There already seems to be empirical consensus from the literature that highly energetic targets, especially ones involving nuclear processes, are almost “impossible to miss”. We also have Ed May’s formal study on Shannon entropy, suggesting that the amount of data produced changes with a target’s Shannon entropy [Ref. 1] What if we could formally prove that certain target features are universally more “loaded”, regardless of the viewer’s background (say – that an old building, or a rapidly moving structure, or a repetitive pattern, are more likely to “come through” than other aspects)? What if we could find certain target characteristics for which the accuracy can be shown to exceed expectations? Then if we knew that such aspects were part of the known set about an operational target, we could task things accordingly – perhaps starting with these target elements, or assigning better probabilities to the data which relates to these aspects. Furthermore, knowledge about such universal cognitive attractors might assist us in navigating the temporal and geographic basin of a given target – where the natural “slide” toward features or events of greater interest would be tempered by an awareness of these potential magnets. Finally, such observations could cast some additional light on the fundamental mystery of remote viewing: what is it about the composition and structure of a target that makes it “knowable”, that allows us to perceive its various elements in the order in which we perceive them, at the angles from which we perceive them, etc…
II. METHODOLOGY
A. General approach
A pool of double targets has been assembled, each consisting of two unrelated pictures that are as similar to each other as possible, except for a single, isolated aspect - the experimental variable. For example, these could represent two fields - one empty, one filled with soldiers engaged in battle; or two crowds - one marching peacefully, one engaged in riots; or two ships - one sailing uneventfully, the other under construction; or two planets - one much larger than the other; etc. For each double target, picture #1 is designated as the one in which the specific variable is represented by a greater absolute value (i.e. greater size, temperature, emotional impact) or as the one in which the experimental variable is consistently isolated (i.e. repetitive patterns): this is to ensure uniformity in the statistical analysis of these effects. Examples of possible variables: 1. high vs. low movement
To avoid additional biasing influences, these double targets are not loaded with any specific tasking questions, but assembled ahead of time under neutral conditions, enclosed in sealed, numbered envelopes and assigned to one global pool, from which daily targets can be chosen at random. While a separate record will be kept of the particular feature isolated for each target, the analysis of the results will not be carried out until all the targets in the pool have been exhausted and all the sessions collected. Unless this precaution is taken, there is a possibility that, by knowing the class a given target belongs to, the person posting the target might insert his own expectations into the outcome of the group's sessions. There is also a possibility that the viewers themselves might identify a pattern in the type of targets they receive and develop undesirable expectations about the nature of future targets. Target pools will therefore consist of an assortment of several experimental samples (that is, several groups of variables) from which daily assignments are chosen at random. Once all the targets in a given pool are exhausted, the sessions can be separated according to their experimental variables, and each data point can be assigned to one of 4 categories: A. relevant only to picture #1; B. relevant only to picture #2; C. relevant to both; D. not relevant according to available information (incorrect data). A score difference M can be thus calculated for each session as (A-B) and the mean of M over the entire sample of sessions can be designated as [M]. Using a Student t table, we can then test a number of hypotheses with variable degrees of confidence. 1. [M] = 0 (there is no statistically significant difference between the number of correct perceptions relevant to targets of types 1 versus targets of types 2: the experimental variable does not represent an attractor) 2. [M]>0 (targets of type 1 are more likely to be correctly perceived by the viewer) 3. [M]<0 (targets of type 1 are less likely to be correctly perceived by the viewer) A sample size of 30 or more sessions would be preferable for this test, but if we can assume that the distribution of M scores is approximately normal across the population, smaller samples should suffice. Also note that the viewer’s quality or performance during any given task affects both A and B scores simultaneously – which provides a highly desirable self-calibration mechanism for evaluation purposes. A similar process can be followed by calculating (A-B) scores across all sessions for each individual target category in order to determine whether particular RV modalities (i.e. shapes, textures, motion), are enhanced in targets with specific features (the experimental variable under control).
B. Data Collection and Analysis
About the targets: you are free to use any method you wish to produce the data, but your report needs to be in a standardized format, so that we can score all sessions according to the same criteria. The session outline format used by Lyn Buchanan’s CRV group is ideally suited to our purposes – if you are not familiar with it, please go to www.crviewer.com, click on FAQs, then scroll down in the question box at the top of the page until you find “Training: How do you score CRV session results?” An even more detailed discussion, with examples, is available in Lyn’s book, The Seventh Sense [Ref 2] - for those of you who have it or are interested in getting it (highly recommended, one of the few real “textbooks” available in the field). See pages 187-196 and Appendix #2 for worksheets and examples.
Some general suggestions and reminders:
- enter one single perception per line: for example, there is a structure which is natural green and tall
- make sure it is clear which descriptors go with which noun or gestalt: using “it” or this” is often confusing. The outline form helps by listing all descriptors right underneath the relevant noun - you can also describe motion, configurations, energy, light, emotions, conceptual information, details about the overall purpose or atmosphere. Again, see Lyn’s book (worksheet on p. 237) if you want to see how this data will be categorized for final scoring and analysis (there are 28 different aspects). - do not send sketches – try to provide a verbal description of the shapes, configurations and relationships of the various elements at the site. Although sketches are often very useful, they cannot be consistently scored and so we cannot make them part of this exercise. - since the primary purpose of RV is to describe, rather than identify, you may find it a good strategy to summarize your perceptions in terms of general categories (i.e. “a yellow, metallic, fast-moving man-made containing two biologicals” rather than “a yellow Ferrari with two Italian men inside”). If you feel highly confident about the accuracy of your perceptions you can, of course, state them as such – but very often the images fed by our subconscious are only partially correct, a quick shorthand that stands for one or two characteristics… breaking down such packages into list of descriptors and then looking for overlapping/compatible perceptions throughout your session tends to yield more accurate data than a string of highly specific nouns. At the same time, try to stay away from the word “something” – in most situations you should be able to tell if the ‘something” is a man-made or natural object, alive or inert, liquid, solid, gaseous, a form of energy, motion, light, etc… - please note that targets will be randomly chosen from different categories: it is counter-productive to draw any conclusions about future assignments based on the sessions you have worked so far as part of this protocol
As mentioned in our earlier discussions, it is crucial that you do not try to integrate the data into an overall meaning: since each target will consist of two separate images, it is important to communicate this to your subconscious at the start of each session, so that there is no build-up of frustration from attempting an impossible task. The objective should be to simply survey the perceptual field, reporting an inventory of sensory and conceptual details. There will be some degree of confusion and overlap, because of our minds’ innate tendency to arrange all this information into a logical scheme. At the same time, you can look upon this exercise as an opportunity to strengthen your control over the acquisition of RV data – since you know that you cannot jump to conclusions and fill in the blanks as freely as you would with a standard target, you will have to probe, pursue and expand each perception in a more disciplined, systematic way. I will list several target coordinates each week, together with the deadline for submitting the corresponding sessions (typically 2-3 weeks later). Feedback will be available after that deadline – I will e-mail you the pictures in an attachment, for every session you have submitted. Once we have enough sessions collected for a given variable, we will run the statistical analysis and publish all targets, results and any further discussions in the Journal of Non-Locality and Remote Mental Interactions (www.emergentmind.org/journal.htm). Please go to www.emergentmind.org/dtp_assignments.htm for a listing of current target coordinates.
Write all your perceptions in outline form, one descriptor on a line, as shown on Lyn’s site, and e-mail me the outline at lian@emergentmind.org , with the target ID coordinate in the subject line. Do not send this outline in an attachment but directly in the e-mail body, so it can be printed and filed with your name and date at the top.
III. PARTICIPATION AND RESULTS PUBLICATION
We will make every effort to complete and publish each section of this protocol in a timely manner - ideally within 3 months of collecting the required number of sessions for each variable. The names of all participating viewers, analysts and project administrators will be listed in the report (unless requested otherwise). Since the rate-limiting step in this process is the collection of raw data, we encourage all interested viewers, regardless of training method, to regularly work and submit these sessions to the above address. Please note that feedback will be e-mailed on an individual basis only to those participants who have submitted a corresponding RV session by the deadline. Feedback will not be available to anyone before the deadline. We will not publish the target pairs until every stage of this multi-phase protocol is complete.
IV. CONTACT US
If you have any questions or suggestions, wish to volunteer as a viewer or help with any other aspect of this project, please write to me at lian@emergentmind.org. You can also enter your comments on our discussion board, at www.emergentmind.org/RV_Board/ Thanks for your interest!
,
REFERENCES
[1] From: Landscaping the Mind: Space-Time Grids, Information Coding and Meaning Retrieval in Remote Viewing. An Interview with Joseph McMoneagle, by . Journal of Non-Locality and Remote Mental Interactions II(2) July 2003 URL: http://www.emergentmind.org/mcmoneagle_II2.htm Q25 . What about intrinsic differences (not subject-specific) between the targets? In principle, one could assign the same coordinate to two different targets by using differently "charged" pictures, to see what type of targets appear more prominently to the viewer (i.e. emotional, culturally significant, repetitive patters, motion, etc). The advantage would be that in this way one can use some form of internal calibration - since it's the same operator on the same session, any accuracy differences would be attributable to the targets themselves (ideally calibrated for all other parameters)... JM: [When it comes to] differentially charged targets - many tests have been done and the differences in Shannon Entropy account for the degree or amount of data that is produced about a target [see reports in the Journal of Parapsychology]. Notice I did not say anything about accuracy here. The AMOUNT of data significantly changes with the change in Shannon Entropy present within a target. However, having said this, the importance of a target could alter the outcome as well. With some hierarchy of significance being unconsciously assigned relative to the remote viewer’s survival – how that might be gauged I haven’t a clue at this point, but it would be an interesting experiment.
[2] Buchanan, Lyn (2003) The Seventh Sense. Paraview, 191 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10011
|
|
|