Cognitive Clusters and Attractors in Remote Viewing: a Pilot Study

Lian Sidorov, Julie Reeung, Dan Bailey, John Cook, Linda Lazarus, Gerry Zeitlin, Bill Stroud

Abstract

The present study was an attempt by a group of non-professional remote viewers to answer two questions about the nature of RV information: 1. Do specific target characteristics (such as motion, emotional load, energy, repetitive patterns, etc.) statistically correlate with an increase in the amount of correct RV data?  2. Are there any correlations between certain classes of remote viewing perceptions, regardless of target or viewer characteristics?

A pool of double targets was pre-assembled in sealed envelopes, each consisting of two unrelated pictures that were as similar to each other as possible, except for a single, isolated aspect - the experimental variable (for this pilot study, the experimental variable was Motion, with randomly interspersed targets from other category pools in order to neutralize viewer expectations).  The viewers, who used individual RV methods,  were blind to the nature of the targets or the variable. Once thirty sessions were collected in the Motion category, each of the two pictures in a target pair was scored against the session data, using a modified  Buchanan perceptual grid. One important feature of this experimental design was that the viewer’s quality or performance during any given task affected both scores simultaneously – providing a highly desirable self-calibration mechanism for evaluation purposes. On the other hand, for our second hypothesis the nature of individual targets was not taken into account: the question being asked referred to potential correlations across viewers and across sessions, therefore each pair of images was treated as a single, complex target.

Using MS Excel, t-scores were calculated for each of the 23 perceptual categories, as well as for the sum-totals of kinesthetic impressions, 1st and 2nd order line angles, total line angles and visual and 3rd order total scores. No significant scores were obtained at a probability level of 0.1 or higher, which means that the presence of motion at the target did not appear to generate an increased amount of correct remote viewing information in any of the perceptual categories that we tested for.

 However, 30 strong and very strong correlations (p<0.01 and p<0.005) were found between various perceptual categories, with only 2 out of the total of 231 expected to occur by chance at this significance level. Visual and conceptual data formed large correlation basins, as expected based on normal cognitive processes and logical inferences. Most interestingly, though, we also found many strong correlations between perceptual categories which would not typically be bound by known physiological pathways. This unexpected result raises the possibility that  there may be anatomically identifiable RV-interface areas in the brain that would account for these particular correlation basin configurations - points that may represent a seldom-looked for  intersection of, say, smell-sound-temperature processing pathways and which may have common physiological characteristics which allow them to act as RV data transducers. Given the small size of our experiment, it is impossible to tell whether these intriguing results represent a promising lead or a mere artifact. Nevertheless, in our opinion they warrant the effort of a replication on a larger scale which, should it confirm these conclusions, would cast new light on the nature of RV information.