Exploring Remote Viewing: Science or Pseudoscience?
Written on
Introduction to Remote Viewing
In March, I shared an article discussing remote viewing and the CIA's evaluation of the Gateway Program. This topic has sparked significant debate regarding the legitimacy of remote viewing as a scientific phenomenon versus a fabricated concept. In this piece, we will clarify what remote viewing entails, delve into its historical context related to intelligence, and examine a recently published scientific study. If you're predisposed to dismiss this subject entirely, feel free to skip ahead to the skepticism section to reinforce your views.
Understanding Remote Viewing
Remote viewing is often characterized as the ability to perceive distant or concealed objects through clairvoyance or during purported out-of-body experiences. — Rosemary Guiley [1]
Remote Viewing in Intelligence Applications
Many are familiar with remote viewing through its association with intelligence, particularly the CIA's assessment of the Gateway Program, which concluded in 1995 [2]. Following an evaluation that yielded less than favorable results, the CIA stated [3]:
- Evidence suggests that remote viewing instances occur more frequently than random chance.
- It remains uncertain whether these outcomes can be ascribed to paranormal phenomena or are influenced by the judges, targets, or methodologies used.
- There is no empirical proof that paranormal factors are responsible for the results obtained in these experiments.
Despite the program's termination, research into remote viewing continues. A recently declassified report from Kona Blue details the expansion of this area of study [4]:
- Conduct initial investigations focused on known hotspots (locations with repeated reports of activity).
- Broaden remote communication initiatives to transmit and retrieve information across dimensional and space-time barriers.
- Develop countermeasures for remote viewing and communication.
- Investigate consciousness interactions with and the control of technology.
- Perform experiments to ascertain baseline parameters for physical transport across dimensional and space-time barriers (beyond mere communication and data transfer).
The first video titled "Understanding the Science Behind Remote Viewing" delves into the scientific principles and controversies surrounding remote viewing, providing insight into its validity.
Brain and Behavior Journal Insights
The journal "Brain and Behavior" publishes research across neurology, neuroscience, psychology, and psychiatry [5]. In May 2023, they released an article titled "Follow-Up on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) Remote Viewing Experiments," which summarizes the experiment and its findings.
Experiment Overview
Participants in the remote viewing study were tasked with identifying a target location based on either sealed coordinates or an image contained within an envelope. They had no physical access to the contents, relying instead on instinct or remote viewing capabilities. Each participant underwent 32 trials, targeting four different site types:
- 8 military installations
- 8 hospitals
- 8 schools
- 8 cemeteries
A total of 634 candidates were divided into two groups: 347 skeptics of paranormal phenomena and 287 believers.
Group 1: The nonbelievers were shown the sealed envelope with coordinates and given 15 minutes to identify the location, earning a point for each correct guess.
Group 2: The believers viewed envelopes containing images and were also given 15 minutes for their guesses, similarly earning a point for accuracy.
Results and Analysis
Given each participant's 32 guesses across four categories, we would anticipate roughly eight correct guesses per individual (32 / 4 = 8). The skeptics, in Group 1, achieved an average of 8.31 correct identifications, aligning closely with expectations. Conversely, the believers scored significantly higher, averaging 10.09 correct guesses, nearly a standard deviation above the norm.
Conclusion and Implications
The 2023 report on remote viewing reveals that:
- Remote viewing experiments yield results above chance levels, with believers outperforming skeptics.
- While this does not substantiate the reality of remote viewing, it does indicate a statistical anomaly that might be considered "real."
- Emotional intelligence appears to correlate with performance in these experiments.
- Anomalous cognitions (remote viewing) should be interpreted as measurable phenomena within statistical frameworks, but should not be mistaken for validation due to insufficient tangible evidence.
Skepticism and Bias in Remote Viewing Research
The scientific examination of remote viewing has encountered much skepticism, much of which is justified. This area of research tends to attract individuals biased toward its validity, which can lead to dubious studies that should be scrutinized carefully.
Bias
The issue of bias is critical in remote viewing studies. Researchers may harbor implicit biases that affect their methodologies and interpretations. People often perceive patterns in data where none exist, especially if these patterns align with their pre-existing beliefs. Given that many researchers in this field may have a personal stake in the outcomes, results could be skewed in favor of remote viewing's legitimacy. However, this does not automatically confirm its scientific validity.
Review of Studies
Numerous investigations into remote viewing have been conducted over the years, yielding both supportive and critical findings [6]. The interpretation of these studies is left to the reader, as the evidence can bolster arguments on either side. As of now, no studies definitively affirm or refute the existence of remote viewing; they merely provide statistical insights. Your interpretation of this article is ultimately shaped by your own beliefs.
In Conclusion
As highlighted in the scientific discourse, remote viewing can only be regarded as a measurable phenomenon within statistical contexts. Due to the lack of solid evidence, it should not be considered a validation of remote viewing. That said, while proving remote viewing's objective reality remains elusive, disproof is equally challenging.
Maintaining an open perspective is vital, particularly regarding concepts that lie beyond our current understanding. Skeptics are encouraged to challenge, critique, and present counterarguments—this discourse is essential for scientific advancement. The ongoing dialogue between believers and skeptics is a necessary dynamic where the strongest arguments should prevail.
To conclude, I leave you with this thought from the scientific paper on remote viewing:
“If science accepts objects of inquiry that are extraordinary in questions of quantum physics and in mathematics, it at least should also be able to accept the scientific investigation (and not the scientific validity) of anomalous cognitions.” — (Escolà-Gascón et al., 2023) [6]
Further Reading
- How Dangerous Can AI Become?
- Expanding Scope and Societal Impact of AI — And How to Mitigate Risks
- As an AI Student, I Am Terrified of AI
- The Wishing Well — How a Fairy-Tale Idea Turns Into the End of Humanity.
References
[1] Harper’s encyclopedia of mystical & paranormal experiences
[2] The Vision Thing
[3] An Evaluation of the Remote Viewing Program: Research and Operational Applications
[4] Kona Blue
[5] Brain and Behavior
[6] Follow-up on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) remote viewing experiments
The second video titled "Remote Viewing and Statistical Validation" explores the statistical analysis of remote viewing studies, providing insights into their findings and implications.