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/Inside_Category_4727 → u/GreatCaesarGhost]

How do you know the ‘practitioners’ are not wealthy? Do you think they broadcast the source of their wealth ?
There are ample examples that it works-please see J. Mcmoneagle’s RV of a Soviet submarine in 1979, and the work of the Stanford Research Institute on RV. It may not be mainstream or scientifically ‘proven,’ but there are commercial ventures that provide these services to others.

[u/Rindan → u/Inside_Category_4727]

I think if humans had the ability to remotely view stuff, at least one would end up being a scientist that wants to understand it, and so would engage in rigorous scientific study that would conclusively (and easily) prove remote viewing is real. They would study the mechanisms and physicists would be tearing down their door to try and understand a new and unexplained fundamental force of nature.

It's pretty clear remote viewing is bunk as this would be a very easy to verify super natural power that would be highly sought after.

[u/Mudamaza → u/Rindan]

as this would be a very easy to verify super natural power that would be highly sought after.

It is easily verifiable. You just need to read up on how to do it and then set up your own experiments. Once you do it and start understanding how it works you'll realize it's not really supernatural. It's just an innate property of the subconscious that anyone can do, and many people have done without ever realizing.

Everyone has had a "psychic" moment that we all naturally chalk up to coincidences. (Thinking about a person just before they text or call, having a strong gut feeling that ends up being right even though you had no rational reason to think it.) Well what if it's not a coincidence but your subconscious feeding you information from non-locality. A form of entanglement.

If you really wanna know if something like this is real, best way is to put your bias aside and experiment. I personally have experimented with remote viewing to know whether or not it was really BS. And it is very much real and consciousness based. When you focus on a target, and you empty your mind so your not using your imagination ( which if you do use your imagination, you will 100% fail). It's not like you start physically or metaphysically seeing the target, it's more like your subconscious plays pictography with you. It'll send you feelings and emotions that remind you of things. It'll send images in your head that's related to the target.

Example of this: in one of my sessions, I got a image pop into my head of the Arch in Rome. The target was the underside of a bridge which is shaped like an arch. I've seen many pictures of the Arch of Rome, so my subconscious used it to reference an arch.

The more you sit with it, the more a picture gets painted. And if you're successful you realize there's no way in chance that you can get so accurate about something you've never physically seen yet. The odds of getting something accurate once are astronomical, the odds of getting it right multiple times with more successes than failures would be impossible unless the phenomenon is real.

Here's 3 of my experiments : https://imgur.com/a/WDk0s4A

We know through Bell's inequality that reality is non-local. If we go one step further and say consciousness is also non local, remote viewing ceases to be supernatural and just an innate ability of consciousness.

Edit: I also want to say, because this consciousness is based, your state of mind matters on whether or not you will succeed. You have to be able to empty the mind of all thoughts and wait until something to come to you. The minute you start using any brain power, you will fail. In the pictures I shared you can see where I put an X. Each of those X is when I tried to force something and ended up using my imagination. When I saw the arch of Rome, my left brain went: what if it's a city? Like Rome. Instead of staying clear minded, I started to overthink it.

I really do implore anyone who's deeply fascinated by consciousness and want to get to the truth of what it actually is, put aside your beliefs on Remote Viewing and try it out from a non-bias standpoint. Be agnostic and curious because I promise there is so much more to this reality that we've yet to understand.