Remote Viewing

>What is remote viewing? Remote viewing is the ability to perceive targets distant in space and time using a specific protocol. This is not just limited to visual perceptions as the term might suggest but all possible perceptive faculties. A more accurate term would be remote perception but remote viewing just happened to stick. >How is remote viewing done? The exact details vary from method to method and from viewer to viewer but it's basically done like this: There is a tasker and a viewer. The tasker prepares a target by putting a target cue into an envelope. This cue can be a written description of the target, a photo or both. The envelope is then sealed and a TRN (target reference number) is randomly generated and written onto the envelope. ONLY the number is given to the viewer and NOTHING ELSE. The viewer then writes down the TRN to trigger a "connection" to the target and starts noting his perceptions. After all the data has been produced the tasker reveals the target cue. This is called feedback. Targets can also be prepared digitally. Simply create a folder, add the target cue (photo, text file or both) and rename the folder after the TRN. >I want to try this out. https://www.remoteviewed.com/simple-remote-viewing-template/ >Okay, so there's something to this. What now? Pick a method and start practising. There's a variety of them and they pretty much all work if you put in the effort. Here's some resources to get you started: https://pastebin.com/wJuDhqqM Targets: http://thetargetpool.com (username and password are both 'guest') Give it a shot and post your results!

>>5310 this sorta soykaf fascinates me, but my ADHD is making it difficult to try this stuff out.

>>5377 ADHD is actually associated with increased psi-ability, you should try it out. I think this might be due to the increased alpha and theta brainwaves.

>>5378 >ADHD is actually associated with increased psi-ability, today is a good day to not be on adderall.

>>5380 Go and give it a try then. It's pretty simple: >>5378

>>5378 >ADHD is actually associated with increased psi-ability feels good being schizophrenic with ADHD but no, seriously. there's no such thing like psi-ability; there are strange things sometimes in life for sure, but anyone is able to experience them

>>5387 Are you saying psi isn't real or that everyone has it? Because I'd agree that everyone has it.

>>5378 Tried it. Here are the results. I didn't literally "let my hand draw whatever" because my hand didnt draw on its own. Instead I doodled with no clear idea of what I was drawing.

>>5310 stop following me

>>5390 No, you stop following me!

>>5378 >cold, blue, metal gears, and a small drawing of a wave >random pic of two cars on a rainy street with a blue hue not sure if that "proves" anything but it sure as hell is pretty neat

>>5392 Keep trying some more and see how the "coincidences" hold up against the odds.

>>5388 I mean that synchronistic phenomena were already theoretically described and researched scientifically by Jung and Pauli, and I would add that they can be also interpreted in context of Everett's quantum multiiverse theory. To speak more directly, in case of any probabilistic event, every result is real at the same time, and probability theory describes a ratio between versions of our minds in multiverse who are experiencing to not experiencing such result. If probability of some random event is like one to million, it means that for million of our copies one will experience such event. This can rationally explain so called psi effect and why some of highly improbable events occur in lives of every of us, even if they look like there was some mysterious magical or divine force behind them. Synchronicities are observed more often and more vividly if, from the point of view of intra-psychic and emotional life, experience makes more sense to the person's self.

>>5399 I would add that Everett's theory contains very interesting consequences, which is usually omitted in discussion of quantum physics, although technically it's the most popular current macro-scale interpretation of quantum mechanics. 1) quantum immortality; if the probability of the survival of our mind is greater than zero, even if it was infinitesimally small, it means that there is still a copy of us somewhere; in other words, we cannot be completely dead, and there will always be our point of view in the universe in which we exist 2) isn't exclusively linked to the multiverse theory, but combines well with it, i.e. the probability that universe is just an illusion of one mind is much higher than probability that there're many independent minds floating in real universe; tying this with the theory of immortality, we get a physical, scientific (I stress that this is hard experimental science) foundation for classic hermetic worldview known also as Unus Mundus, or neutral monism, in which all of existing spirit and matter form a wholeness

>>5400 > although technically it's the most popular current macro-scale interpretation of quantum mechanics. last I heard the Copenhagen interpretation was most popular among physicists. Most people don't even know what quantum mechanics is (aside from "there's a cat in a box and it might be alive or it might be dead don't know until you open the box!") so their interpretation of it is irrelevant. > the probability that universe is just an illusion of one mind is much higher than probability that there're many independent minds floating in real universe why would that probability be higher?

>>5399 Psi is repeatable in the lab however. You can do this with large sample sizes. At some point probability fails to be a probable explanation. Look into pupil-presentiment for example or micro-psychokinesis.

>>5401 I think among physicists Everett's interpretation is the most popular one atm, but maybe I'm wrong, I don't care actually about that. >why would that probability be higher? Because one mind with illusion of the universe is less complex so is needs lesser energy, compared to a hypothetical empty world in which only virtual particles / quantum fields exist.

>>5403 basically this is application of Ockham's razor to cosmology

>>5402 phenomenon of micro-psychokinesis can be sufficiently explained by combining quantum decoherence effect (which is easier to be observed in microscale) with Jungian self-meaning providing function of human mind (which at least according to Penrose's theory also can use quantum superposition to process information, being basically form of quantum neural network) if we use the analogy of quantum computation (like Shore's factorisation algorithm) - assuming we have given set of concurrently occurring quantum/probabilistic events, if only one specific sequence is solution to the equation, after decoherence this will be one our mind most probably will encounter (decreasing the number of our alternate copies after introducing additional constraints into the equation)

>>5403 >Because one mind with illusion of the universe is less complex so is needs lesser energy a thing containing all the observable details of the universe is just as complex as the universe itself, almost by definition.

>>5406 minds are not observable except one

>>5407 So your logic is circular. Just because quantum physics is mysterious to you doesn't mean it confirms your mystical beliefs. If you want to believe this stuff then you should go all out and start studying metaphysics, kabbalah, *and* physics. The secrets of the universe, whatever you think they are, aren't available to people who talk about things they don't really know.