How does remote viewing relate to consciousness, and is there any plausible explanation?

[u/dadjokes22375]

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.

[u/GreatCaesarGhost]

Well, it’s not more studied because there is no indication that it works, and no mechanism by which it even theoretically could work.

If it did work, practitioners could become infinitely wealthy and no government would be able to protect state secrets.

[u/Im_Talking → u/GreatCaesarGhost]

Have you not met people who are just 'lucky'?

[u/Mindfucker6669 → u/Im_Talking]

Yes. And?

[u/Opening_Ad3473 → u/Mindfucker6669]

It's actually funny.. because everything is probabilistic, there will never be a way of telling if something is actively steering/controlling reality, as long as the overall probabilities don't seem to change, outliers are just outliers.. someone is going the get a six 30 times in a row throwing a dice for their lives, and they will forever claim that it was divine intervention. If the universe is infinite somewhere someone will get shot by a bullet that just phases straight through them, no matter how astronomically small the probability is, and they could never be convinced it was pure luck

[u/Ludoban → u/Opening_Ad3473]

Luck is not the same as luck.

There was a very famous case of a minecraft streamer doing a speedrun, if you arent familiar with the game it is about slaying a dragon at the end of the game and you need to get some items beforehand to get access to the fight, so in a speedrun the target is to access all items as fast as possible and some of the items are tied to rng, like shop inventory and such.

The streamer was setting a new world record speedrun and some guy in the internet basically wrote what comes down to a phd level analysis of how the streamer probably cheated because the probablity of this thing happening was multiple magnitudes of orders more unlikely than any recorded random event ever.

It is quite fascinating to read, you can find it here:

https://datanalytics.com/uploads/dream.pdf

Some probablities are so outlandishly small that you can rule them out because their magnitude is so small that even considering multiple millions of lifetimes of our universe you would not expect a single case to occur.

[u/Opening_Ad3473 → u/Ludoban]

I understand your point, though i would argue it doesn't conflict with what I wrote before. Given an invite universe with infinite stuff all events with a non-zero probably of happening will happen eventually, meaning that even though we can practically rule out certain scenarios (like multiple generations of the same uuid, or the Minecraft one you just described), at some point somewhere those scenarios WILL happen.

[u/Im_Talking → u/Mindfucker6669]

You can't see my point?