Information Flow

 

Home Up

 

 

 

 

 

IV. Information Flow and Psychophysiological Entanglement in RV Networks

 

Posted: November 15, 2003
Lian Sidorov
(see
Entanglement and Decoherence Aspects in Remote Viewing: a Topological Geometrodynamics Approach in JNLRMI II(1) for more background on these proposals)

1. Based on previous studies in DMILS (Braud & Schlitz; Yamamoto & al. 1996-b,c; Yamamoto & al 1997,1998, 1999, 2001; Hirasawa & al, 1996-1,2; Kawano 1998 in above paper) one is justified to predict that common focus will result in detectable physiological responses at all or most of the "synaptic points" involved in the Remote Viewing network: that is, if the tasker and viewer(s)  are physiologically monitored during the RV session (based on a blind trial series protocol where they do not know when a participant is engaged in viewing the target and when he/she is resting) - then we expect that a statistically significant difference will be found between their various physiological parameters during active versus sham session windows. Since past studies of tohate/DMILS have focused on EEG alpha waves, galvanic skin response and heart rate, we suggest using the same parameters for now. Furthermore, since the most considerable physiological responses are evoked by negatively charged and highly emotional stimuli (such as violent or erotic scenes) we suggest that the RV target be of this nature. If significant physiological changes are noted in the resting participants, correlating with the RV windows, this may be seen as supporting evidence for the hypothesis that focus on the target affects all individuals with a common interest in the target (psychophysiological "entanglement"). 

2. The reverse of this experiment could also be tested: does simultaneous application of intent result in greater effect size?  For example, a series of comparative  trials with target  pairs of similar nature and difficulty level could be designed in which all viewers and the tasker simultaneously concentrate on their participation in the RV session:  does the average group session score  increase when all intents are simultaneously aligned, or is it similar to the same group's average score when each viewer's session occurs at a different time?  Is there more evidence of telepathic overlay in simultaneous sessions?  Is there an improvement in reliability or accuracy in particular? 

3. How do target properties affect performance? One possible approach to this question could involve using a single coordinate to designate not one but two different targets?  Does the signal line contain equal amounts of information about both? Could we use this technique to isolate particular target features which tend to be more salient to a particular viewer? One clear advantage of using such a method is that it contains an intrinsic calibration: since the viewer's mental and physical status does not vary between the two targets, it can be reasonably assumed that all variations are due to intrinsic target characteristics, rather than subject performance.  

Increasing connectivity: a variation on this experimental series could have E (end user) spend 5 minutes three times a day focusing on object P and 1 minute three times a day focusing on object Q; if the same coordinate XYZ is assigned to both P and Q by tasker S, will there be more data retrieved about target P?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright 2000-2006 EmergentMind.org

This page was last modified on 07/13/07 . For questions or comments regarding this web please contact Lian Sidorov at lian@emergentmind.org

  

 

 

Hit Counter