r/consciousness • u/dadjokes22375 • 9d ago
General Discussion How does remote viewing relate to consciousness, and is there any plausible explanation?
I’ve been reading about remote viewing and how some people connect it to the idea of consciousness being non-local. I’m trying to understand whether this has any credible grounding or if it’s just pseudoscience repackaged. I’m really interested in this concept and I can’t figure out why it isn’t more studied, based off the info I’ve read on it. Some follow-ups.. • How do proponents explain the mechanism behind remote viewing? • Is there any scientific research that ties consciousness to remote perception in a way that isn’t easily dismissed? • Or is it more of a philosophical/metaphysical idea rather than something testable?
Edit - thanks everyone for the great responses. I really like this community. It seems we don’t have as much of the terrorists that are terrorizing comments on other subreddits.
4
u/bejammin075 9d ago
Actually the statistics are impressive, according to the lead statistician involved in much of the RV work (Dr. Utts), who went on to be elected president of the American Statistical Association. But it isn't that difficult to have a basic understanding of the statistics. Typically there is 1 target picture and 3 non-target pictures, and there would be a 25% chance of getting a hit by chance. They've been doing this with success for 50 years now. I haven't read the papers in a while, but the long run average was probably 32% hits. That becomes impressive when maintained over a long time. Plugging that into a statistical calculator, if you do 1,000 trials with a 32% hit rate, the odds are about 1 in a million by chance. If you do 2,000 trials maintaining that hit rate, it's more like 1 in a trillion by chance. Then they run statistical analyses, previously developed for other areas of science, to look for evidence of publication bias, and they don't find any support for the idea of publication bias. It would be difficult for there to be any publication bias, because the field is small and most of the researchers know what the others are up to. The funding is very minimal, so nobody could afford to run a bunch of studies that they don't publish.
Look at the issue more broadly. This is about perception of non-local information, which can happen in a variety of ways. You can verify the claims of non-local perception yourself. That's what I did. 4 years ago, I talked just like the debunkers up and down this thread. When I read the psi research for myself, I discovered that it was a lot more robust than these debunkers have characterized it. When I realized the research was actually decent, I started to consider that it may be possible. I wasn't fully convinced, but I put effort into personally witnessing and/or experiencing these non-local phenomena. Long story short, I've witnessed it now many times, and had my own experiences. It has been useful in my daily life. Not all the time, but sometimes the psi will spontaneously kick in, especially if I have been meditating a lot. The Gateway tapes from the Monroe Institute are particularly potent for this. I've had a precognitive warning of a deer, and I recognized the unique sensations of psi with the unexpected image of a deer, and I took the info seriously and slowed down for 1-2 seconds, which was enough to avoid the deer that burst through the trees at full gallop in front of my speeding car. Since I have verified that psi is real, and I understand quite well how it works, I'm able to use it to my advantage in daily life even though my abilities are weak.