Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by birch, Aug 10, 2017.
Is this true ?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
What are you on about ?
Yes. Remote viewing isn't real. Should be easy to show if it was true.
OK, I'm thinking of a snack food. What is it?
So you have no idea of what remote viewing is ?
Being able to sense things at a distance with your mind only?
No visualize things at distance .
I have in my view a kind of snack, a product. Can you see it? If so, what is it?
I know you aren't claiming to have this skill, but at least this is the kind of test that could be performed. Just with more scientific rigor.
So you have no idea that remote viewing has been going on since the 60's ?
How does remote viewing prove that the universe is not only material? I can imagine several mechanisms that could accomplish it. What if all of us were highly sophisticated androids only we didn't know it? We send out billions of spore sized sensors that spread over the planet and report back information in the form of sensory impressions.
Note, I'm not admitting that sensory viewing is real, just saying what if it were real.
Do you really believe in what your saying ?
Regarding the OP: no, that wasn't me, I had nothing to do with it.
Remote viewing is a particular flavor of ESP.
People have been claiming ESP for time untold. It would be quite easy to verify ESP. Unlike ghosts or UFOs, ESP can be tested under controlled conditions.
Yet, apart from a few specious tests, it has never produced reliable results, let alone a mechanism by which it might operate.
You would think, what with all these strong proponents, they would theorize a mechanism by which ESP could occur, and then devise tests that would verify it - or falsify it.
But you don't see a lot of unbiased science happening, do you? Do you see these proponents exploring the mechanism by which the brain might communicate telepathically, then then testing that theory to establish its veracity? No, ESP works best when viewed through the veil of mystery.
Surprisingly , you also , have no knowledge of remote viewing .
I have not provided anything by which you could judge how much knowledge I have. Your judgement stands self-evidently false.
Unless you are refuting my one assertion that remote viewing is a subset of ESP - i.e. extra-sensory perception.
Then define ESP , as you know it .
It is, literally, Extra-Sensory Perception.
Problem is, no one has been able to put forth anything more than conjecture about what mechanism might be behind the results of the experiments. There's no corroborating evidence (say, a previously unknown organ in the brain, or a detectable EM frequency), so they remain just that - conjecture.
Other than simply describing puzzling results in lab experiments, it doesn't have a definition (since a definition would specify a testable mechanism).
It's like defining dark energy. So far, we can't; we simply have results, but no model/mechanism.
(The difference between ESP and DE is that anyone with the right instruments can look up and acquire their own data for themselves and, in doing so, verify that the phenomenon is not illusory, biased or faked.)
Yep, best guess of what we are viewing. When everyone agrees, we call it reality.
The military thought otherwise .
Indeed. And, with research, they too discovered that it was worthless.
Separate names with a comma.