[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference hydra::dejavu

Title:Psychic Phenomena
Notice:Please read note 1.0-1.* before writing
Moderator:JARETH::PAINTER
Created:Wed Jan 22 1986
Last Modified:Tue May 27 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:2143
Total number of notes:41773

1756.0. "Remote Viewing" by DWOVAX::STARK (TV, cathode ray nipple) Fri Oct 30 1992 17:42

Article: 33558
Xref: pa.dec.com sci.skeptic:33558 alt.paranormal:5177
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Path: pa.dec.com!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!sheaffer
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Keith Harary and Remote Viewing
Message-ID: <1992Oct30.154531.12362@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1992 15:45:31 GMT
 
Two months ago, when a question was raised about supposed "remote
viewing," I wrote that Keith Harary, who was one of the high scoring
'stars' at SRI with Targ and Puthoff, and later with Targ at Delphi
Associates, was now inclined to "poo-pooh the whole business." This
was the conclusion I reached after discussing the matter with him,
and listening to some of his statements that to me were not very clear. He
certainly seemed to be discounting the results and significance of
those experiments. What really made me think that he completely disavowed
the entire thing was his pursuit of a lawsuit against
his former partner Russ Targ. Targ used Harary's name in a private
venture promoting "remote viewing", allegedly without Harary's
permission, which Harary is charging caused harm to his reputation,
causing people to associate his name with such a thing, etc. Apparently
his complaint is that the use of his name in this way harms his
reputation as a psychologist, the implication clearly being that
"remote viewing" is a flakey thing. Because
of this, I concluded that Harary felt he no longer wanted to see his
name associated with experiments in ESP and "remote viewing." But it
seems I came to the wrong conclusion. Harary wrote to me asking if I
would correct what I said concerning his current views on "remote
viewing," so I am happy to quote the exact words he sent me to explain
his present opinion:
 
     "I am very concerned about the methodological and conceptual
      flaws in a number of remote viewing experiments. I am equally
      concerned about the misreporting of data from certain of these
      experiments. I also find myself at odds with certain claims that
      have been made about remote viewing applications that appear to
      be scientifically unfounded. (I refer you to the current and
      upcoming issues of the _Journal of the American Society for
      Psychical Research_ for my detailed critiques of certain of these
      claims.) I do not, however, "poo-pooh the whole business," but
      rather find this to be a challenging and provocative area of
      research that deserves serious and careful attention. Something
      important clearly appears to be going on, at the very least on
      a cognitive level. I do not, however, believe that the results
      of remote viewing experiments require a supernatural, occult, 
      or religious explanation. I expect the explanation eventually
      to emerge within the framework of mainstream science."
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
 
       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
    
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
1756.1Keith Harary vs Blue HararyCADSYS::COOPERTopher CooperFri Oct 30 1992 18:0220
    In my opinion, Keith Harary has been trying for some time to distance
    himself from his past as the noted psychic Blue Harary.  He is
    unwilling to actually repudiate his past, and still maintains an
    interest (for example, he usually shows up at the annual meetings of
    the Parapsychology Association as a reporter for Omni -- though he
    didn't this year) in parapsychology.  But he is constantly downplaying
    and distancing himself from work he was previously involved with -- for
    example, by challenging descriptions of the extent of his own
    involvement.

    In particular, he is in the middle of a dual of papers in the Journal
    of the American Society for Psychical Research with Stephan Schwartz
    about a commercial treasure-hunting/underwater-psychic- archeology
    project he worked on with Stephen.  Many of his points are good -- the
    project was no where near as rigorous as it could have been, the
    commercial and scientific goals got somewhat muddled, and claims about
    his role are not as well documented as they should have been.  On the
    other hand, he is doing a whole lot of nit-picking without much point.

					Topher
1756.2Squirming to sound conventionalDWOVAX::STARKTV, cathode ray nippleFri Oct 30 1992 18:2612
    I didn't have many of the details of Harary's past, but that was
    pretty much the impression I was getting, that he seemed *very*
    anxious about improving his credibility in certain circles by 
    removing himself from possible 'non-mainstream' implications of 
    his aspects of his past work.   The whole Harary quote has to me that
    distinctive 'squirming to sound conventional' sound to it.  :-)
    
    Thanks for the comments.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd
1756.3VERGA::STANLEYwhat a long strange trip it's beenFri Oct 30 1992 19:221
    How do they test for stuff like remote viewing anyway?
1756.4Remote viewing tests.CADSYS::COOPERTopher CooperFri Oct 30 1992 19:4121
RE: .3 (Mary)

    "Remote viewing" actually describes a kind of test, although there is a
    heavy implication of the kind of target -- and people have used the
    word to describe any ESP about a location.

    The standard test has someone (the "agent") going to a randomly
    selected location.  The percipient -- unaware of the choice of course
    -- describes (or draws, etc.) impressions that they get.  The
    impressions are then compared to a "pool" of locations which includes
    the target location.  Generally this is done with photos of the
    locations but it has also been done with impressions gotten of each
    location by someone who has gone there.  The comparison may be done by
    the percipient, or by independent judges, or both.  If the target
    location is judged most similar to the impressions, that is considered
    a "hit".  Partial scores may or may not be counted in the particular
    experiment.  Although "scoring" is done as I described, a lot of
    attention is generally paid to the unquantifiable "quality" of the
    match.

					Topher
1756.5VERGA::STANLEYwhat a long strange trip it's beenFri Oct 30 1992 19:421
    .. sounds like fun actually...
1756.6Fun is fine.CADSYS::COOPERTopher CooperFri Oct 30 1992 19:594
    Yup -- I kinda' suspect that part of its popularity as an experimental
    procedure is because it *is* fun.

					Topher
1756.7But not as much fun as a full blown seanceDWOVAX::STARKTV, cathode ray nippleFri Oct 30 1992 20:585
    More interesting than trying to guess Zener card outcomes
    1,000,000 times in a row or trying to guess random numbers ?
    Not hard to believe almost anything would be fun in comparison.
    
    							todd
1756.8SWAM2::BRADLEY_RIHoloid in a Holonomic UniverseTue Nov 10 1992 21:0444
    It IS fun!  I've done it a few times at Esalen Institute, with George
    Leonard, as the "instigator".  He likes to try some of this "daring"
    stuff when I come to the group.  Yes, I have experienced a few "hits". 
    I've also experienced them when not "trying" to.
    
    A theoretical underpinning (paradigm) which, for me, provides an
    adequate frame for understanding this phenomenae is:
    
      o The Universe we are in consists of stuff we can see (a very small
    percentage of what there is. (The visible spectrum for Humans)
    
      o The largest part of the Universe consists of stuff we cannot see:
    Cosmic Rays, Neutrinos, X-Rays, etc.  This "stuff" is physical
    (Einstein showed that); yet, this kind of "stuff" goes through our
    bodies all of the time.  (If you have a very small radio or TV [small
    enough to fit in your hand] you can demonstrate this easily.) 
    Moreover, you already know radio and tv "waves" go through your
    dwelling and nearly all other buildings (except those lead shielded),
    or in "Faraday Cages".  Thus, we're always in and have always been in,
    and electromagnetic soup.  We are, furthermore, always "connected"
    within this soup.  To contact someone, one needs to access the right
    "frequency".  This part is fuzzy.  My guess is that the Right
    Hemisphere (in right-handed people) is the locus of the tuning and
    sending parts of our equipment, with communication across the Corpus
    Collosum to the speaking part of our brain, the Left Cerebral Cortex. 
    Holonomic Brain theory combined with David Bohm's speculation that we,
    apparently, inhabit a Holograpic (nomic) Universe. And as Karl Pribram
    said, when talking with Bohm, we have a Holonomic Brain interpreting a
    Holonomic Universe.  So Remote Viewing is one of the things we do.
    
    o In my Workshops I've experimented with this. It is better with
    groups, and the group needs to have done a lot of meditation together
    during a day (let's say).  I'd say an hours worth, at least, during an
    8-hour period.  It should be in a quiet place with few external noises
    and influences (telephones, radios, talk, trucks, airplanes).  Then set
    up any kind of experiment whose resolution requires remote viewing or
    "thought transference", and see what you get.  You know, have someone
    drive for 10 minutes, stop for 10 minutes, then have people draw, sing,
    the location--don't try to use linear, left-brained functions for this.
    My experience suggests Right Hemispheric functions.  Left-brained
    functions seem to act as inhibitors.  You can do your logical analysis
    later.
    
    Richard B
1756.9VERGA::STANLEYwhat a long strange trip it's beenWed Nov 11 1992 14:082
    That sounds like fun, Richard.  Why don't they pay people to do
    interesting stuff like that? :-)
1756.10SWAM2::BRADLEY_RIHoloid in a Holonomic UniverseThu Nov 12 1992 02:593
    I do plan to be paid $$$$$
    
    Richard B
1756.11Why always hemispheres ?DWOVAX::STARKControlled flounderingThu Nov 12 1992 11:4810
    re: .8,
    	Yes, sounds like interesting work.
    
    	Regarding your theoretical underpinning, Richard,
    	do you have any indications that there is actually
    	differential activity of the brain hemispheres, or
    	is that a speculation based on extrapolation from
    	the infamous commisurotomy experiments ?
    
    					todd
1756.12VERGA::STANLEYwhat a long strange trip it's beenThu Nov 12 1992 12:357
    .10
    
    Wow!  Are they taking resumes?  :-)
    
    Seriously Richard.... how do they know who should be on the team and
    who shouldn't?  It's not exactly something one can produce work samples
    of.. and be believed (that is).
1756.13SWAM2::BRADLEY_RIHoloid in a Holonomic UniverseFri Nov 13 1992 04:1013
    Todd:  This is speculation, partially based the Commisurotomy
    experiments by Bogen, Gazzaniga, etal.  I certainly was not using EEG's
    during my workshops.  Somebody's got to do the wild speculation--so,
    I've chosen myself.  :-)
    
    Mary:
    
    I didn't understand your question?  But, this work is both fun and
    enlightening, and it has taken a lot of work, study, money, books to
    gain the knowledge base for me to do it.  That's a good enough set of
    reasons to charge money.
    
    Richard B