Journal of Nonlocality and Remote Mental Interactions Volume II, Number 3 November 2003



9. Pilot Study in RV Target Attractors: A Protocol Proposal for Discussion - Lian Sidorov

8. Call for Papers: 47th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association - Stefan Schmidt

7. RE: Lyn Buchanan and Bill Stroud's comments on "Data Integration in RV: Abstraction Levels and Context"- Lian Sidorov

6. Comments on "Data Integration in RV: Abstraction Levels and Context" - Lyn Buchanan

5. RE: "Data Integration in RV: Abstraction Levels and Context" - Bill Stroud

4. Binary Remote Viewing - A.E.S.

3. Call for Abstracts: International Scientific Symposium "Paradoxical Effects

in Biophysics and Medicine" - Savely Savva

2. RE: "Collective Consciousness and Cultural Healing" - Robert Wolfe

1. Induction of a Stereotactic Auditory Hallucination by an Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Electromagnetic Field - Mark Germine

9. Pilot Study in RV Target Attractors: A Protocol Proposal for Discussion

Posted: January 19, 2004

From: Lian Sidorov

One of the basic problems we encounter in RV seems to be the gradual "slide", during the session, toward peripheral or contextual aspects which, for one reason or another, represent more powerful attractors than the primary target. If this goes on for long enough, especially in the absence of a monitor who can redirect the viewer, the session summary will contain primarily "off-target" information and be considered a failure.

What we need to develop, as viewers, is an ability to detect such psychological undercurrents and correct our course. A novice viewer follows the rigid structure given to him by his instructor in order to master the basic skills for staying afloat in a new, unfamiliar environment. Once these basic survival skills have been internalized, the rest of one's life-long training should address the problems of navigation, not swimming form: just as a sailor needs to read the wind, the tides, the shore and the stars, we need to understand the psychological influences of various "formations" we encounter in our sessions: everything we know is loaded with connotations, everything has its own gravity and psychological turbulence, its own dynamics. If we are not weary of these factors, we allow ourselves to sail blindly and are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. While no two sessions and no two viewers are ever alike, this should not discourage us from trying to derive some empirical conclusions based on our collective experience: it is a modest and awkward beginning, but that is how all true learning accumulates.

What do attractors typically consist of and when do they form? The available RV literature suggests that emotionally charged events may displace a viewer time-wise, while large or unusually shaped structures can cause a similar geographical slide. What we propose, as a preliminary experiment, is to create a pool of double targets, each consisting of two unrelated pictures that are as similar to each other as possible, except for a single, isolated aspect - the experimental variable. For example, these could represent two fields - one empty, one filled with soldiers engaged in battle; or two crowds - one marching peacefully, one engaged in riots; or two ships - one sailing uneventfully, the other under construction; or two planets - one much larger than the other; etc. A list of variables could include, but is not restricted to, features like size, temperature/energy generation, speed of motion, number of people involved, the strength and type of their emotions, the complexity of a target's structure, the relative survival value of an event, the stability or transient nature of a phenomenon, single versus repetitive patterns, representative versus abstract designs, etc. For each double target, picture #1 should be designated as the one in which the specific variable is represented by a greater absolute value (i.e. greater size, temperature, emotional impact) or as the one in which the experimental variable is consistently isolated (i.e. repetitive patterns): this is to ensure uniformity in the statistical analysis of these effects.

To avoid additional biasing influences, these double targets should not be loaded with any specific tasking questions, but assembled ahead of time under neutral conditions, enclosed in sealed, numbered envelopes and assigned to one global pool, from which daily targets can be chosen at random. While a separate record should be kept of the particular feature isolated for each target, the analysis of the results should not be carried out until all the targets in the pool have been exhausted and all the sessions collected. Unless this precaution is taken, there is a possibility that, by knowing the class a given target belongs to, the person posting the target might insert his own expectations into the outcome of the group's sessions. There is also a possibility that the viewers themselves might identify a pattern in the type of targets they receive and develop undesirable expectations about the nature of future targets. It would therefore be preferable that target pools consist of an assortment of several experimental samples (that is, several groups of variables) from which daily sessions are pooled at random.

Once all the trials are complete, the sessions can be separated according to their experimental variables, and each data point can be assigned to one of 4 categories:

A. Score of correct perceptions relevant only to picture #1;

B. Score of correct perceptions relevant only to picture #2;

C. Score of correct perceptions relevant to both;

D. Data not relevant according to available information.

A difference score M can be thus calculated for each session as (A-B) and the mean of difference scores over that specific session sample can be designated as [M]. Using a t distribution table, we can then test a number of hypotheses with variable degrees of confidence:

1. [M] = 0 (there is no statistically significant difference between the number of correct perceptions relevant to targets of types 1 versus targets of types 2: the experimental variable does not represent an attractor)

2. [M]>0 (targets of type 1 are more likely to be correctly perceived by the viewer)

3. [M]<0 (targets of type 1 are less likely to be correctly perceived by the viewer)

A sample size of 30 or more sessions would be preferable for this test, but if we can assume that the distribution of difference scores is approximately normal across the population, smaller samples should suffice.

Other considerations:

1. Can we use more than one session per experiment from any individual viewer? While it may be practically easier to collect the requisite number of sessions from a few committed volunteers, one needs to take into account how this might affect the sample distribution: since each viewer processes the data in a highly idiosyncratic way, the distribution of M scores might be severely skewed by using only a few viewers. Since we are trying to identify whether the experimental variable represents a universal attractor, it would not be wise to base such a test on only a few participants, for whom the hypothesis may or may not hold true. By using a one session/viewer approach for each set of variables, we are probably safe in assuming that the M distribution is normal and therefore that a smaller sample size is sufficient. However, the sample should include at least several target pairs, in order to ensure that any detected patterns are due to the chosen experimental variable and not to some other factors particular to the individual target.

2. Target pool preparation: how can we ensure that there are no significant, hidden variables in addition to the one we are testing for? And how can we achieve uniformity between the two targets in a pair while preserving sufficient difference in order to separate between perceptions relevant to each of them? For example, if we use two mountains as a target pair, only one of which is in the middle of a volcanic eruption - how many perceptions are we likely to identify as relevant only to the "quiescent" target? Since every additional visual element that might help identify a target is also a potential hidden variable, it may be desirable to collect a certain amount of "neutral" collateral data about each target, such as location, season, etc and use that information to filter the raw data yielded by each session. It may also be advisable to convert all target pictures to black-and-white and crop them to the same size for feedback purposes.

3. Viewer protection: since each target will consist of two unrelated images, it is very important that participating viewers be warned against any attempt to try to integrate the session information. While they should be entirely blind to the nature of the experimental variable involved in the trial, they should understand that only raw, low-level data is to be provided, and that site/meaning integration is to be strongly discouraged in order to avoid the psychological frustration associated with an impossible task.

4. Finally, viewers should submit session summaries as described above and keep the original session notes, since feedback won't be available until the completion of a particular experiment.

If you have any comments/suggestions about this proposal, or would like to volunteer as a remote viewer, please write to me at jnlrmi@hotmail.com or post your ideas on our RV Project Board at http://www.emergentmind.org/RV_Board/index.html.




Received: January 9, 2004

From: Stefan Schmidt

The 47th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association will be hosted by the Austrian Society for Parapsychology and Border Areas of Science, and will be held from 5th to 8th Aug, 2004, at Vienna University. For information regarding registration and hotel accommodation, visit http://parapsychologie.ac.at/pa-2004/ or contact: Peter Mulacz by e-mail at pa-2004@parapsychologie.ac.at.

Papers: Anyone may submit a paper for consideration by the Program Committee. Papers may be clinical, experimental, historical, methodological, philosophical, or theoretical, or may report field work or case studies of any relevant kind, and of sufficient interest to the community, and of sufficient depth to be amenable to a 20 to 25 minute presentation time with further discussion. The Program Committee will not consider, in this category, proposals for research which has not yet been carried out, analyses of work in progress, nor will the Committee consider papers published in English prior to the Convention. However, recent papers that have been previously published in a language other than English are acceptable in this category, provided the paper has been translated into English for the purpose of submission to the Program Committee. Papers submitted for floor presentation should be the equivalent of full-length journal articles. A detailed description on the preparation of manuscripts can be found below.

Posters: Posters are papers or other materials presented on poster board in an installation separate from the convention floor. Poster sessions are especially appropriate for short papers, those that are particularly amenable to visual displays (e.g., demonstration of equipment or techniques) and highly technical papers that cannot be communicated effectively in a brief lecture format to a general scientific audience. Authors who want their papers presented in a poster session should indicate this at the time of submission, with particular attention paid to a description of the visual materials that will make up the content of the presentation. In addition, the Program Committee may, at its discretion, designate other accepted papers for presentation in a poster session. Poster session papers will be included in the convention proceedings. Proposals for posters should be prepared according to the instructions for full papers listed above. Photocopies of photographs to be used in visual presentations are acceptable with the submission.

Research Briefs: Research briefs are short papers, up to 1000 words, reporting recently completed work or research in progress, of sufficient interest to the community, but able to be adequately summarized in a 5 to 10 minute presentation. Submitted research briefs must include detailed descriptions of the design and planned analyses and may include supplemental descriptions, beyond the 1000-word brief, when it might be helpful to the Program Committee in making a decision. The Program Committee may, at its discretion, designate other accepted papers for presentation as a research brief. Research briefs should be prepared according to the instructions for full papers listed below, but without the 500 word abstract.

Symposia/Panel Discussions/Workshops: Only Members and Associates of the Parapsychological Association may propose a symposium, panel discussion, or workshop.

Symposia Symposia are formal presentations by participants on related topics. Proposals for symposia must include a summary sheet indicating title, chairperson, participants, order of presentation, and proposed time allotments, up to a total of 90 minutes, including discussion periods. Symposia submissions must include full papers from each of the participants included in the symposium and prepared per the instructions listed below.

Panel discussions

Panel discussions are informal roundtable discussions intended to maximize spontaneous interactions of panelists and the audience. A total of 90 minutes, including discussion period, is allocated for panel discussions. A minimum of four participants should be proposed, with time apportioned among them and a substantial discussion period. Proposals for panel discussions should include a summary sheet that lists the panel title, chairperson, panelists, order of presentation, and time allotments as well as abstracts of 500 words from each panelist. Panel discussion proposals should be prepared per the instructions listed below


Workshops are informal discussions of specific topics. Proposals for workshops should include a summary sheet listing the title, chairperson, other presenting participants, type of activity, and a description of the intended content of the workshop, not exceeding 500 words. Workshop proposals should be prepared per the instructions listed below.

Preparation of Manuscripts

A standardized template has been developed into which submissions for this year's convention may be entered. Authors are strongly encouraged to use this standardized style template in MS Word or RTF format. A description of how to download the template can be found at the URL http://www.parapsych.org/call_for_papers_2004.html. After downloading this file to their computer, authors can double-click on the file to open a new document in the standardized format. Authors can then replace the text entered as an example with their own text but are cautioned not to change the predefined formats. Tables and figures should be inserted into the text, must be numbered and must have a title or legend but can be of any format that suits the authors' needs.

Authors who are not using MS Word are asked to download a PDF file of the template which is available from the URL http://www.parapsych.org/PA_2004_Submission_Template.pdf and to use it as an example of the suggested format. The number and titles of headings and subheadings may be adapted and altered to suit the authors' needs. If authors find it impossible or difficult to use the standardized template, please contact the Program Chairperson for assistance and advice. It is hoped that the template will help to produce a proceedings booklet with a cohesive look as well as to simplify the job of the referees who will review each submission.

Full papers for floor presentation, full papers for poster presentation and full papers being submitted as part of a symposium should follow the template as closely as possible, should be the equivalent of a full-length journal article, and should contain a 500 word abstract that will be published in the Journal of Parapsychology and placed on the PA's website. The text of the paper (including abstracts, tables, references, figures and illustrations) should not exceed 7000 words in total. If not otherwise specified authors are requested to adhere to the style of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, or the format used by the British Journal of Psychology, especially for quotations and references.

Manuscript Submission

Manuscripts for all types of submissions should be submitted electronically using MS Word for Windows. Authors who do not use this program should contact the Program Chairperson for assistance and advice. The submission deadline is 31st March, 2004. Authors should be aware that any papers received after the deadline, even if accepted, may not be included in the printed Proceedings of Presented Papers. Please send all submissions and other correspondence about the program to:

Stefan Schmidt, Ph.D.

Institute of Environmental Medicine and Hospital Epidemiology

University Hospital Freiburg

Hugstetter Str. 55

D-79106 Freiburg


email: sschmidt@ukl.uni-freiburg.de

7. RE: Lyn Buchanan and Bill Stroud's comments on "Data Integration in RV: Abstraction Levels and Context"

From: Lian Sidorov

Posted: January 18, 2004

I am very grateful to Lyn and Bill for taking the time to read and reply to my suggestions: Lyn is one of the most experienced and most highly respected figures in the RV community, a true legend to some of us, and I have no doubt that his ability to anticipate the likely impact of these proposals is far more accurate than mine. I also think that Bill, as an advanced CRV student and a truly original thinker, is in a position to share valuable insights into these matters and steer our efforts in the right direction.

This being said, I'd like to clarify a few points.

Lyn is entirely right in stating that the worst thing a viewer could do is try to identify the target early in the session. The example he gives ("a monument in a park") is representative of such identification - but this is very far from what I had in mind. The challenge I presented was this: can we find a set of neutral, early cues that would lead to relevant abstract descriptors which are general enough that they, for all intents and purposes, CAN NOT coalesce into a preconceived meaning at this early stage? My suggestion was based on a precedent - the fact that our early ideograms and cues are in fact preliminary filters giving us basic information about the target: natural versus man-made structure, static versus dynamic, etc. We know that a triangle does not necessarily identify a mountain, and a square is not necessarily a box. We recognize the typical ideograms that our subconscious uses to represent living creatures, water, energy, etc - but we know better than to start putting together a scenario after the first three sketches.

Indeed, we put all this information aside and forget about it until the first integration stage (S3 in the HRVG method) - at which point every element of the session is considered again against the full tapestry of data points, and the interpretation of ambiguous "terms" is decided in the context of our results. At that point, and that point only, do we apply logical deductions for any significant length of time. And it is also at that point that we may be allowed to ask ourselves: do we assign slightly more credibility, or weight, to the early data - is there a chance that the essential (to the tasker) features of the target were less contaminated in the early contact by our inherent attraction to more "exciting", if tangential, aspects? (The rationale could be that the preliminary "contact" with the target is made through the aligned intent of viewer and tasker, while later in the session the viewer is more free to move around the already "familiar" target.) If early functional cues can help us circumscribe the aspects of greatest interest to the tasker, then the advanced protocols can be used more effectively. The alternative is, of course, using a monitor to steer the viewer toward those aspects that are more critical to the investigation - but as everyone knows, monitoring is never 100% free of unwanted influences.

My aim was thus simply to expand the classes of early descriptors to include more functional reference points - such as the predominant form of energy and motion, the relative prominence of physical versus emotional or intellectual activity, the perceived "urgency" of the situation, etc... As I said earlier, these were mere examples - it would be up to the RV community to pool its collective experience and decide what types of cues would best fulfill the above criteria. Once the ideal cues have been identified, they should be condensed to 1-2 word prompts, rather than elaborate questions (which are indeed distractive).

The other idea that Lyn addressed was my proposal to develop a higher-level vocabulary of unique mental images/ideograms to help us navigate more abstract targets. I think his concerns are very insightful and valid:


[...] suggestion for the experiment is an excellent one, scientifically based and scientifically valid. I hope that people get involved in this experiment and I look forward to seeing the results. The basic problems will still be there, however, that:

1) a viewer will be trying to force what is otherwise a natural occurrence (this is not necessarily a bad thing, but might still be a problem.)

2) a viewer will be more prone to limit the "best" sessions to those targets within his/her own personal experienced. In fact, I would wonder whether or not doing this as a matter of habit would retard a viewer's ability to get targets which are not within his/her personal experience.

3) since this is an advanced technique, there will need to be a "qualification" process. The experiment, if limited to more experienced viewers, would be valid. If inexperienced viewers are included, simply because they want to be a part of a research project, or because they overestimate their abilities, the real potential for the process to do harm to those viewers' learning curve is real.


I think the primary concern here should be the potential for "over-specialization" in a particular field. Someone who spends an extensive amount of time developing physics or mathematics-related ideograms will likely end up "seeing" such ideograms in almost every target he/she is assigned. But that has always been a caveat in RV: people who are primarily tasked with missing persons cases will develop a strong expectation that the next target will be of the same nature. Viewers who are obsessed with UFOs or conspiracy theories will develop this type of story line in a remarkable proportion of their sessions. Nothing new so far - we simply need to make sure that our targets cycle through a healthy spectrum of subjects and suspend all expectations.

I would certainly not recommend that a viewer try to become an "expert" in a particular field by developing an advanced vocabulary of concepts limited to that discipline: I fully agree with Lyn that such an attempt would be disastruous both to the long-range quality of the viewer's sessions, and to viewer himself. But I believe that the development of a well balanced thesaurus of abstract ideograms (including concepts from fields such as physics, biology, politics, sociology, geology, religion, etc) can lead to a gradual increase in the specificity with which we are able to probe our targets. RV in its present form is designed primarily for describing the tangible world around us. If we limit ourselves to that vocabulary, it's unlikely that we'll be able to get far in our scientific projects: it's really not all that different from our normal use of language - we would not expect a first grader to understand the theorems of trigonometry or calculus, although they know circles and curves: those packages of reinforced knowledge which are later evoked by the simple mention of a specialized term are not available for easy manipulation in their minds.

Joe McMoneagle once spoke about how the Stargate viewers were tested on a series of targets representing various mechanical implements, in order to see how well they could differentiate between different technologies. That is what I'm talking about: getting correct glimpses of the target is far easier than being able to integrate that information at the next level of abstraction - which is, for example, "process". It is not a specialized vocabulary of target "identities" I am arguing for, but one of higher-level classes, such as purpose or dynamics, which our minds are not currently trained to explore and communicate effectively. As far as forcing a process to occur prematurely, I would not include these highly abstract concepts among the early cues discussed above: I would expect that, with sufficient repetition, they will arise spontaneously at various points in the session, and simply add to the overall pool of data. Finally, at no time should the viewer attempt to force a choice between available categories: all such lists of higher descriptors should be considered OPEN, allowing for the possibility that the purpose, process or any other aspect one is aiming to describe is one which may not be part of our current conceptual vocabulary.

If anyone is interested in pursuing some of these exercises, a list of abstract descriptors and categories has been started already: we look forward to your additional comments and suggestions.



6. Comments on "Data Integration in RV: Abstraction Levels and Context"

From: Lyn Buchanan, Problems>Solutions>Innovations

Received: Dec 5, 2003

I was very impressed with Lian's very excellent article and proposal for experimentation on a concept. This is the kind of thing we need more in this community. It can be found at:


I have a few comments, both pro and some which may at first sound con, but really aren't.

The first thing I noticed was the basic tenet of the article.... that the viewer should seek to name or identify the target - at least the contextual basics of it.

Second, he suggests that certain "neutral" cueing be used right after the viewer starts into Stage 2. Not having had CRV training, I don't think he realizes that such neutral cueing is a standard part of the CRV process. Therefore, on this one point, he has very effectively reinvented the wheel. A very necessary wheel, but he has come to this conclusion on his own - something for which I praise him very highly.

He suggests, though, that the viewer stop early in a session and ask him/herself these cues in the form of full-blown questions and then analyze what little target contact has been established, in order to get an answer

to the question.... all in an early attempt to name the basic, most underlying contextual identity of the target. It is a good and logical theory, but in actual practice, it will probably lead to viewer misery, especially (as he points out very well) for inexperienced viewers. Such in-session analysis leads one to stop paying attention to information coming in from the subconscious mind and start working consciously or "left-brained". It interrupts the flow and progress at a very fragile point in the session..

The cues he suggests at this point are for gaining advanced, more conceptual information early on in Phase 2. This is one of the points of his article - that such information could be very helpful in this early stage, because it would let you make better sense of the raw sensories and dimensionals by being able to put them into a context. This brings us back to one of the most basic tenets of remote viewing.... you are not there to name or identify or even to understand. You are there to describe. You are the village idiot to whom the doctor, lawyer, and all the other town leaders come for advice. You don't have to understand it - you just have to be plain and honest and allow to spill out of your mouth whatever is going on in your mind. When you get down to it, the best remote viewers and the village idiot have many things in common.

The reason for this basic "describe, don't identify" tenet is that we, as humans, do our thinking in very predictable and actually, very inefficient ways. One of our first tendencies is to "pigeon-hole" or stereotype

everything. So, let's say that a viewer, early on in his/her session realizes that the target is, say, a monument in a park. The overpowering tendency at this point is to make it outdoors (not all are), tall (not all

are), upright (ditto), metallic, man-on-horse or historic-male-person-looking-dignified, etc. etc. etc. Lian is totally aware of this tendency, and cautions:

"For this reason, during the collection of S1-S2 data, the information elicited through these exercises should not be given any more consideration than every other piece of matrix data: ideally each should be recorded, then erased from the viewer's short-term memory and the target should be probed as if for the first time. Otherwise, trying to establish the general context too early in the process might unduly restrict or contaminate the data with preconceived notions. "

In other words, he explains a second basic tenet of remote viewing, "There is no session above the line you're on."

[I have to interrupt the point I'm trying to make to add in one other comment of Lian's - which totally affects everything.... Lian made the distinction throughout his paper between inexperienced and experienced

viewers. But to continue...]

At the point of a viewer identifying the target ("This is a monument in a park!"), the inexperienced viewer will stop the session and want his/her feedback. Having seen that the target is, indeed, a monument in a park,

the inexperienced viewer will feel warm and fuzzy (and rightly so - a miracle has just taken place in that person's life), while the much more experienced viewer will understand that his/her work has only now reached a good starting point. He/she realizes that the task now is to find those descriptors which will >>>let the customer<<< distinguish that one statue and that one park from all other statues and parks in the world.

And this is key to the issue. If the viewer is obligated to identify the target, then he/she can only "get" those targets which are within his/her own experience. But, if the viewer's only responsibility is to describe,

then the target doesn't have to be in the viewer's experience. The entire universe can be targeted. The target can be an object or place the viewer has never experienced or even been able to imagine, and the viewer can

still describe it to the point where >>>the customer<<< can add the information gained through remote viewing to information the customer already has on hand or information they get through other sources, to find

the actual target. Ultimately, it is never the viewer's duty to identify - only to describe.

But this gets back to Lian's statement that, at some point in a session, the random perceptions will coalesce and the viewer will suddenly realize what the target is. This happens automatically at the advanced stages,

simply because the weight of so much information makes it begin to settle into place. This is a natural thing that happens within the structure of the remote viewing session - but normally at the higher levels.

As I read Lian's article, I understood it to be an attempt to make this naturally-occurring coalescing happen on demand, in the earlier stages. But this places an additional responsibility on the viewer which,

frankly, during the early stages of a session, the viewer, no matter how experienced, is just not ready to bear. The poor viewer - even the most experienced one - is floundering and futzing around in total darkness,

trying to grab something out of his/her mental surroundings which may or may not happen to whiz past in the darkness.

I am reminded of a time when I was in northern Japan, where there are a lot of geysers. It is a mark of distinction for a rock hound to have a personally procured "geyser stone". That is, one of the stones which

bongle back and forth up and down the tube of a geyser as it erupts - but doesn't make it to the surface. It gets worn away a little every time it travels up and down the tube with each eruption. Over centuries of time,

it will become worn into strange shapes and light enough to travel very close to the surface, and finally one day, to be blown out of the ground. So, around every geyser, you will find geyser stones lying around

the ground. But the avid rock-hound will not place value on these, but will wait until the geyser blows, cram his arm down into the boiling water blowing out of the tube, and frantically grab back and forth, wildly hoping

that a stone rises into his hand, and that he can catch it when it does. There is about a 1 in 1,000,000 chance that it will happen, so you have to repeatedly, all day long, or day after day, cram your arm into

boiling water which blows across your face and chest, and try again and again and again. But when it does happen, you have a prize that only a handful of rock hounds ever have an opportunity to possess. It is a

monumental achievement. Talk about rites of passage! I wound up with major burns on my arms, face and chest, and two geyser stones. I wanted to make it three, but it never happened.

Anyway.... the point to all of that totally senile digression.... when the inexperienced viewer is grabbing around blindly in the darkness for anything which may or may not happen to bonk into his/her mind, the lost

feeling and the darkness may be as painful to the inexperienced viewer as that boiling geyser water. At that time, the added burden of any other tasks or qualifiers is just too much.

But a more experienced viewer, simply out of the natural course of gaining experience, will also gain the faith and knowledge that the moment of target awareness will come in its own due time, and be willing to work

towards it. There won't be a rush to identify the target, simply because, in their experience, they will have learned that you can totally and accurately describe something, whether you know what it is or not.

For the experienced viewer, the task during the early stages has become routine, and Lian's suggested method might be very helpful, even add some welcomed struggling to the now routine early stages of the experienced viewer's session. So, the reader of Lian's article should realize that this is a tool for more experienced viewers, and not for beginners..

Even the proposed experiment of creating advanced or complex contextual or conceptual ideograms is an experiment which is (or certainly should be) reserved for more advanced viewers. Viewers who haven't yet established a basic set of dependable ideograms should certainly not be given the task to create contextual ones.

Further, Lian is aware of and raises the question mentioned above about identification requiring life experiences, when he asks:

Since the level on which we tend to naturally integrate the data seems to be dependent on our own background, would it be possible to artificially design cues meant to identify the proper abstraction level required for a given target? And could we reduce the likelihood of "translation error" by artificially building a vocabulary of abstract concepts - to be trained into the mind as "single mental images", replacing the natural shortcut loops which form with extensive exposure to a particular field?

His suggestion for the experiment is an excellent one, scientifically based and scientifically valid. I hope that people get involved in this experiment and I look forward to seeing the results. The basic problems

will still be there, however, that:

1) a viewer will be trying to force what is otherwise a natural occurrence (this is not necessarily a bad thing, but might still be a problem.)

2) a viewer will be more prone to limit the "best" sessions to those targets within his/her own personal experienced. In fact, I would wonder whether or not doing this as a matter of habit would retard a viewer's

ability to get targets which are not within his/her personal experience.

3) since this is an advanced technique, there will need to be a "qualification" process. The experiment, if limited to more experienced viewers, would be valid. If inexperienced viewers are included, simply

because they want to be a part of a research project, or because they overestimate their abilities, the real potential for the process to do harm to those viewers' learning curve is real.

Well, this is getting long... There are two bottom lines in all of this. Lian points out one of them when he says,

But are there valid, process-based objections to this exercise? Is there a reason to believe that target aspects such as energy, function or emotions CAN NOT typically and reliably emerge so early in the process? This is perhaps an answer that can only be given by controlled experimentation and comparing the scores of standard sessions with those in which this cueing is used.

So, the first bottom line is that, in order to find out whether or not you can benefit from this idea, you have to try it out, keep documentation, and make that documentation accurate. That is the proposal made by this

article, and it is an extremely excellent one.

The other bottom line is that you need to become an experienced viewer, and that requires (cover your eyes, kids, I'm going to use the "P" word..) practice. Lots and lots of practice.

I was very impressed by Lian's article and his suggested experiment - and in fact, with the overall publication in which it is located. I hadn't known about this source of remote viewing information before, but

definitely will keep up with it and recommend it to others.

Lyn Buchanan, Problems Solutions Innovations

37 Camino Ranchitos, Alamogordo, NM 88310

Ph: 505-437-8285 Web site: <http://www.crviewer.com>

It's your mind - use it or lose it.

The ultimate oxymoron: "Holy War"

5. RE: "Data Integration in RV: Abstraction Levels and Context"

From: Bill Stroud

Received: December 5th, 2003

RE: http://www.emergentmind.org/sidorovii3.htm


Your paper (Remote Viewing Proposals: Data Integration in RV: Abstraction Levels and Context) addresses a question that, I think, has been relegated to a Neverland, but not one built by Michael; it is one left naturally standing from frustration with the usual limitations of the discipline of remote viewing. And your posing the question of a better integration of data is certainly timely and significant for current and future study of remote viewing dyamics.

Unless I have misinterpreted Buchanan's take on this, he sets as the primary goal of CRV, not the identification of the target, but the acquisition of data about the target. This primary goal entails--again as I understand his position--a couple of corollaries as to methodology and progression dynamics; i.e., that the Structure was built to keep the focus at first on simple descriptors, tactiles, etc., and gradually progress to more complexity in S-4 and S-6. Imposing your desire for integration and more defined conceptuals at an early stage would seem to derail this sequential progression by addressing the problem up front, like trying to figure out where one is going on a trip by noting the first things seen out the window during the movement of a few blocks down the street. This, indeed, has a tendency to drive AOL's onto a fast horse headed for some sunset.

As I understand CRV in the context of its tradition of concept development, its greatest value has been, not in target identification, but in the acquisition of descriptive data, data that can be used to amplify, clarify and supplement other sources of traditional informational gathering. I see the EOM as simply another step in discovering a common conceptual kernel among descriptors. If a detective finds a sea shell, a bit of sand, and a ball, he could conclude that the suspect had been to the beach. That type of work is strictly a deductive operation and strictly rational. However, with the EOM ("essential overlap matrix"), we are trying to ferret out condensations of themes, like trying to understand the grammar of the unconscious, not the plot of the story which the grammar is only related to as an underlying dynamic of symbol formation.

I share your hope and frustration in trying to squeeze out of CRV a more focused target identification. Keep at it and let's try to move this wagon on down the road.

Thanks for your effort and commitment to the discipline.

Bill Stroud

4. Binary Remote Viewing

From: A.E.S.

Received: December 6, 2003

Dear Lian,

I'm curious if the concept of "binary remote viewing" (or anything comparable to this term) is to be found in

the discussions to which you refer, or the circles in which you're active.

"Binary remote viewing" as I'd use the term would refer to RV experiments in which exactly two locations or

"environments" would be set up located as close as possible to one another for convenience, but made as different as possible in character to make potential remote viewing as effective as possible.

[Example, just off the cuff: two adjacent rooms:

* a "cold room," held at a chilly temperature; decorated entirely in "cold" colors and icy themes; pictures of snow, ice, eskimoes, polar bears on the walls; cold tub of water with chunks of ice in the middle of the room; etc

* a "warm room", held at a warm temperature; decorated entirely in "warm" colors and warm or tropical themes; pictures of warm sunshiny themes; maybe a blazing fireplace.

One can obviously think of other examples, but the basic objective is just two different environments, designed to be fully acceptable to participating subjects as being clearly as different and distinguishable from each other as possible.]

You can see what's coming: experiment involves starting with a long string of binary digits; in each successive

trial in a long string of repeated experiments, the "transmitting" subject goes into either the cold or the warm room depending on the next digit, 1 or 0, in the binary string (which is of course random and only revealed to anyone at the last instant before each trial); and transmitter attempts to transmit to the remote viewer, or remote viewer attempts to sense, which room, i.e., which binary digit is being sent.

Bottom-line measure of remote viewing success is then, what is the "channel capacity" of remote viewing?

Specifically, how many bits per second can be transmitted from "transmitter" to "receiver", over a long series of many trials?

A Google search on "binary remote viewing" brought up nothing. Does this concept, or something like it, find any resonance in the remote viewing community?

Yours truly, AES

3. Call for Abstracts: International Scientific Symposium "Paradoxical Effects

in Biophysics and Medicine"

From: Savely Savva

Received: Dec 4, 2003


This is a call for abstracts and an invitation to join the cosponsoring coalition

for the First International Symposium “Paradoxical Effects in Biophysics and

Medicine” December 12-17, 2004, at Asilomar Conference Center, Pacific Grove,


The R-13 Grant Application for this Symposium was filed with NIH on the approval

of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)NIH.

Justification part of the Application is available to potential cosponsors.

31 abstracts of presentations at the Symposium by scientists of 10 countries

(including 10 by scientists of the Russian Academy of Sciences -- RAS) as well as

other relevant papers were published in MISAHA Newsletter, #32-35, 2001 and # 36-39,

2002 and are available at www.whps.com/misaha Additional abstracts will be selected

for presentations by the Organizing Committee of the Symposium that includes

Professor John O’M Bockris (Texas A&M University), Professor William A. Tiller

(Stanford University), Professor Elena B. Burlakova (Institute of Biochemical

Physics, RAS) and Academic Yurii V. Gulyaev (Institute of Radioengineering

and Electronics, RAS).

A new scientific basis has to be developed in order to comprehend organisms’ general

control system and utilize alternative medical practices such as mind/body therapies

(including placebo effect), homeopathy, acupuncture, so-called energy therapy, etc.

that lies beyond biochemistry. The Symposium will render a platform for exchange of

credible scientific observations, that cannot be explained by current knowledge and

conventional physical models, and propose potential directions for further

experimental and theoretical studies.

Topics of discussion will include:

- Paradoxical properties of water and very low concentration water solutions of

biologically active substances (their effects on living systems);

- Hypothesis of the biofield as the general control system of the organism and

its possible physical carrier(s), its role in biological processes, communication,

psychokinesis and healing;

- Alternative physical models, which could encompass life, mind and associated

phenomena, and methods of their experimental verification.

Cosponsoring organizations and individuals are encouraged to donate funds, share

their mailing (E-mail) lists and/or spread this information among their members,

readers and associates.

Please send abstract and donations to:

Monterey Institute for the Study of Alternative Healing Arts (MISAHA)

3855 Via Nona Marie, Ste. 102C

Carmel, CA 93923 USA


831-622-7975; 831-625-9617 Ph/Fax

Savely Savva

2. RE: "Collective Consciousness and Cultural Healing"

From: Robert Wolfe

Received: December 8, 2003

Thank you for sending me the latest issue of your journal. I read with interest Duane Elgin's article, "Collective Consciousness and Cultural Healing". I thought he made some good points but that the article suffered from the lack of a physical basis for his notion of collective consciousness. It lacked a physical basis because Elgin was unable to transcend the conventional model of reality as existing only from moment to moment. Indeed, far from transcending this model, Elgin affirmed it, stating: "Everything in the cosmos is a flowing movement that co-arises along with everything else, moment-by-moment, in a process of continuous regeneration." In my view, the notion that reality is created from moment to moment is only slightly less absurd than the notion that reality ceases to exist from moment to moment. Reality clearly has a continuous existence in time stretching back into the past and forward into the future. It is only our consciousness of reality that moves from moment to moment. Adoption of this simple postulate would solve many unsolved mysteries.


Robert Wolfe

1. Induction of a Stereotactic Auditory Hallucination by an Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Electromagnetic Field

From: Mark Germine

Received: September 04, 2003

About three years ago I suggested that the Taos Hum, a humming noise heard by certain individuals in the area of Taos, New Mexico, and elsewhere, might be the result of the effect of extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic radiation on the brain (http://iesk.et.uni-magdeburg.de/~blumsche/M112.html). In the course of investigating this possibility I constructed a crude apparatus for generating ELF radiation and tested the effect of such radiation on myself.

The apparatus consisted of a Fender Princeton Chorus (trademark) amplifier connected to an electromagnetic coil. The amplifier was adjusted to produce a moderate volume, high frequency noise oscillating at eight cycles per second (8 Hertz). A copper coil was constructed of medium gauge copper wire wrapped several times around the head in a mid-coronal orientation such that the output of the amplifier was directed through the coil rather than to the speaker on the amplifier.

When oriented in a slightly oblique hat-band orientation in full contact with the head an auditory hum was heard within the cranium in a tabular distribution that corresponded to the orientation of the coil. The hum was heard throughout the intra-cranial distribution defined by the plane of the copper coil. I have never before or since experienced an auditory hallucination.

Although the experiment was rather crude, I am reporting it because of the apparent induction of a stereotactic auditory hallucination by an ELF electromagnetic field. The extent to which direct electrical stimulation of the brain may have been involved is unknown. Whether the apparent stereotactic distribution of the auditory hallucination was real or apparent is also unknown. The experiment does, however, raise interesting questions about the nature of hallucinations in terms of their relationship to the electromagnetic field of the brain and the brain’s alpha rhythm, as well as the possibility of remote interactions occurring between the brain and ELF electromagnetic wave generators.

Mark Germine


416 Jackson Street

Yreka, CA USA 96097