27 Jul 2011, 2:52 am
27 Jul 2011, 3:03 am
27 Jul 2011, 3:18 am
27 Jul 2011, 3:25 am
27 Jul 2011, 3:39 am
27 Jul 2011, 3:53 am
27 Jul 2011, 8:55 am
27 Jul 2011, 9:03 am
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
27 Jul 2011, 9:15 pm
27 Jul 2011, 10:07 pm
27 Jul 2011, 10:17 pm
27 Jul 2011, 10:27 pm
27 Jul 2011, 10:36 pm
John_Browning wrote:
The CIA tried this and other mind control experiments in the '60s. It didn't work.
It was called "Project Stargate" (<-- link).
The Stargate Project was terminated in 1995 following an independent review which concluded:
Quote:
The foregoing observations provide a compelling argument against continuation of the program within the intelligence community. Even though a statistically significant effect has been observed in the laboratory, it remains unclear whether the existence of a paranormal phenomenon, remote viewing, has been demonstrated. The laboratory studies do not provide evidence regarding the origins or nature of the phenomenon, assuming it exists, nor do they address an important methodological issue of inter-judge reliability.
Further, even if it could be demonstrated unequivocally that a paranormal phenomenon occurs under the conditions present in the laboratory paradigm, these conditions have limited applicability and utility for intelligence gathering operations. For example, the nature of the remote viewing targets are vastly dissimilar, as are the specific tasks required of the remote viewers. Most importantly, the information provided by remote viewing is vague and ambiguous, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the technique to yield information of sufficient quality and accuracy of information for actionable intelligence. Thus, we conclude that continued use of remote viewing in intelligence gathering operations is not warranted.
— Executive summary, "An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications", American Institutes for Research, September 29, 2005
Further, even if it could be demonstrated unequivocally that a paranormal phenomenon occurs under the conditions present in the laboratory paradigm, these conditions have limited applicability and utility for intelligence gathering operations. For example, the nature of the remote viewing targets are vastly dissimilar, as are the specific tasks required of the remote viewers. Most importantly, the information provided by remote viewing is vague and ambiguous, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the technique to yield information of sufficient quality and accuracy of information for actionable intelligence. Thus, we conclude that continued use of remote viewing in intelligence gathering operations is not warranted.
— Executive summary, "An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications", American Institutes for Research, September 29, 2005
So, if the most intelligent people in the world's foremost intelligence agency have determined that it is pointless to investigate claims of alleged psychic ability, then why do unintelligent people of limited education still pursue this line of fruitless investigation?
Maybe they lack affirmative reinforcement of their meager existences?
27 Jul 2011, 10:41 pm
28 Jul 2011, 12:23 am
Fnord wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
The CIA tried this and other mind control experiments in the '60s. It didn't work.
It was called "Project Stargate" (<-- link).
The Stargate Project was terminated in 1995 following an independent review which concluded:
Quote:
The foregoing observations provide a compelling argument against continuation of the program within the intelligence community. Even though a statistically significant effect has been observed in the laboratory, it remains unclear whether the existence of a paranormal phenomenon, remote viewing, has been demonstrated. The laboratory studies do not provide evidence regarding the origins or nature of the phenomenon, assuming it exists, nor do they address an important methodological issue of inter-judge reliability.
Further, even if it could be demonstrated unequivocally that a paranormal phenomenon occurs under the conditions present in the laboratory paradigm, these conditions have limited applicability and utility for intelligence gathering operations. For example, the nature of the remote viewing targets are vastly dissimilar, as are the specific tasks required of the remote viewers. Most importantly, the information provided by remote viewing is vague and ambiguous, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the technique to yield information of sufficient quality and accuracy of information for actionable intelligence. Thus, we conclude that continued use of remote viewing in intelligence gathering operations is not warranted.
— Executive summary, "An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications", American Institutes for Research, September 29, 2005
Further, even if it could be demonstrated unequivocally that a paranormal phenomenon occurs under the conditions present in the laboratory paradigm, these conditions have limited applicability and utility for intelligence gathering operations. For example, the nature of the remote viewing targets are vastly dissimilar, as are the specific tasks required of the remote viewers. Most importantly, the information provided by remote viewing is vague and ambiguous, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the technique to yield information of sufficient quality and accuracy of information for actionable intelligence. Thus, we conclude that continued use of remote viewing in intelligence gathering operations is not warranted.
— Executive summary, "An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications", American Institutes for Research, September 29, 2005
So, if the most intelligent people in the world's foremost intelligence agency have determined that it is pointless to investigate claims of alleged psychic ability, then why do unintelligent people of limited education still pursue this line of fruitless investigation?
Maybe they lack affirmative reinforcement of their meager existences?
That was the executive Summary of the report done by the independent review presented at the beginning of the full report, it was not the conclusion of the report. It is as follows:
Full report: http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/AirReport.pdf
Quote:
7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated.
This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria. The phenomenon has been replicated in a number of forms across laboratories and cultures. The various experiments in which it has been observed have been different enough that if some subtle methodological problems can explain the results, then there would have to be a different explanation for each type of experiment, yet the impact would have to be similar across experiments and laboratories. If fraud were responsible, similarly, it would require an equivalent amount of fraud on the part of a large number of experimenters or an even larger number of subjects.
What is not so clear is that we have progressed very far in understanding the mechanism for
anomalous cognition. Senders do not appear to be necessary at all; feedback of the correct answer may or may not be necessary. Distance in time and space do not seem to be an impediment. Beyond those conclusions, we know very little.
I believe that it would be wasteful of valuable resources to continue to look for proof. No one
who has examined all of the data across laboratories, taken as a collective whole, has been able to suggest methodological or statistical problems to explain the ever-increasing and consistent results to date.
Resources should be directed to the pertinent questions about how this ability works. I am confident that the questions are no more elusive than any other questions in science dealing with small to medium sized effects, and that if appropriate resources are targeted to appropriate questions, we can have answers within the next decade.
It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated.
This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria. The phenomenon has been replicated in a number of forms across laboratories and cultures. The various experiments in which it has been observed have been different enough that if some subtle methodological problems can explain the results, then there would have to be a different explanation for each type of experiment, yet the impact would have to be similar across experiments and laboratories. If fraud were responsible, similarly, it would require an equivalent amount of fraud on the part of a large number of experimenters or an even larger number of subjects.
What is not so clear is that we have progressed very far in understanding the mechanism for
anomalous cognition. Senders do not appear to be necessary at all; feedback of the correct answer may or may not be necessary. Distance in time and space do not seem to be an impediment. Beyond those conclusions, we know very little.
I believe that it would be wasteful of valuable resources to continue to look for proof. No one
who has examined all of the data across laboratories, taken as a collective whole, has been able to suggest methodological or statistical problems to explain the ever-increasing and consistent results to date.
Resources should be directed to the pertinent questions about how this ability works. I am confident that the questions are no more elusive than any other questions in science dealing with small to medium sized effects, and that if appropriate resources are targeted to appropriate questions, we can have answers within the next decade.
Per the actual conclusions of the report anamalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. They didn't see a need for additional funding to test for proof of anamalous cognition because they saw the proof already provided as sufficient that the ability is possible and has been demonstrated. They suggest a scientific explanation of the phenomenon rather than that of a paranormal one.
They recommended that funding and further investigation should be directed into determine how the ability works. As far as I know there has been no effort there.
It is clear that the authors of this reports issue is not that anamalous cognition does not exist, only that remote viewing is not accurate enough for actionable intelligence and the further use of it was not warranted.
The full report is extremely interesting, and only adds credibility to the current research that is being done in the scientific community on anamalous cognition. The answer of why anamalous cognition can be demonstrated is likely to be much harder to measure. The suggestion that a scientific investigation would lead to an explanation in a decade was obviously an overly optimistic one, now that 16 years has passed since this report was written.
jojobean
Veteran
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk
28 Jul 2011, 2:10 am
