[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Extremely unlikely indeed, if we arbitrarily focus our hypothesis on the > premise that RV is caused by > "electromagnetic radiation" emanating from the brain.
As far as I know, nothing else emanates from the brain. What else could there be, neutrinos? Entangled particles? If and when they find something else, it may be a candidate. I suppose a hypothesis might be: remote viewing works; it cannot be electromagnetic; so it must be something new and undiscovered. That seems weak to me. > This popular line of thought is precisely the reason why, IMHO, this > phenomenon remains largely categorized as > a pseudo science by many traditionalists. I think reproducibility and the s/n ratio are bigger problems. People like me, who are also traditionalists, know that countless aspects of biology cannot be explained. That does not bother us. > Personally, I think there is a far more simple explanation for the > phenomenon. However, I suspect a scientist > looking for objective proof using traditional tools like charts and > statistical measurements will have a difficult > time finding the tell-tale signatures. What is your simple explanation? It is unclear from this message. It has to be some sort of physical signal. Any physical event can be detected with some kind of instrument. So what kind of detector should we use? If you cannot answer that, then your explanation is not "simple." It is not even an explanation yet. I am sure that if remote viewing is real, there has to be a way to detect the signal with some sort of instrument, because the human brain is an instrument. I do not believe in supernatural powers or events that can only happen in vivo. (Except, as I said before, true love, or the ability to devise tax laws.) On the other hand, the brain is many orders of magnitude more complex than any instrument devised so far, so it may not be possible for us, at this stage, to make a detector. But I am sure it is possible in principle. > Hopefully, trying to bring this personal manifesto to a reasonably short > conclusion, might I suggest that the > problem may lie more in our current perceptions of what makes up the core of > our INDIVIDUALITY - our sense > of SELF. First of all, I would wager that the awareness of our SELF can > hardly be considered an > objective experience capable of being measured easily in objective terms. . . > . That is a subjective or poetic description, not an explanation. That does not give us clue what the physical basis of this phonomenon might be. SELF may be impossible to measure (like true love), but if remote viewing exists, it has to be measurable and it has to have a physical cause, just as surely as you can measure any other bodily function. "Vitalism" -- the notion that biology is somehow separate from chemistry and physics -- bit the dust in 1828 when Wohler synthesized urea. That was one of the great liberating moments in history, along with Darwin's discovery of evolution. It finally freed mankind from his special and separate place in the universe -- a prison! That notion was one of the most pernicious and destructive mistakes we ever made, along with racism and Roman Numerals. It held us back for centuries. - Jed
