Post Studies Here: Dream Sharing, Remote Viewing, etc.

**spockman** · 11-04-2010 03:52 AM

There are many members here that claim to be able to do things like astral projection, remote viewing, dream sharing, etc. From the looks of it quite a few people claim to be able to do it, (even in this community alone.) If even a fraction were able to do as they claimed, the number of people with extraordinary abilities would still be significant.

SO with such a large number of potential paranormals, I figure that the odds that each of these abilities, should they be real, having not been tested and at least to some degree confirmed multiple times in a controlled environment by fairly reputable testing parties would be pretty low.

Many of these claims would have pretty simple testing procedures without incurring too exorbitant an expense, (except for hours of grad students time and we all know how little that is worth.)

What I am saying is that I find it unlikely that there have not been valid tests done that confirm these abilities if they existed. BUT I would not find it unlikely that, in the event such powers are real, such tests exist and I do not know about them. Anyone else on this site may be interested to see them, for that matter.

This is a thread to post links to studies done on any Beyond Dreaming subject you wish. I would prefer you post tests administered by neutral parties, since we could all just google it if any study would do. But you are free to post any study you like, regardless. Still, the challenge is in finding a good, unbiased research paper/report. Please give a brief summary if all you are posting is a link.

Thanks guys. Have fun sharing your findings.

**Hukif** · 11-04-2010 05:16 AM

Yes, thinking studies for such stuff is simple is the reason why most aren't taken seriously, they are too simple and don't even prove anything. Most of the stuff you will get here has little to no scientific value, really. Just pointing this out before you get dissapointed <.<

**The Cusp** · 11-04-2010 05:22 AM

Linda Lane Magallon had done research into shared dreaming. I'm too lazy to scour the internets for details of her experiments, but I'm sure someone would be able to find something. The details of her research and experiments are most likely in her books, but there's bound to be something online.

Linda Lane Magallón

**spockman** · 11-04-2010 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by Walms

Yes, thinking studies for such stuff is simple is the reason why most aren't taken seriously, they are too simple and don't even prove anything. Most of the stuff you will get here has little to no scientific value, really. Just pointing this out before you get dissapointed <.<

Simple not as in poorly thought out. Obviously detailed thought would have to go into a study to eliminate as many variables as possible. Research into the actual supernatural claims and opinions held by whatever subject you are testing would have to be accounted for as well. But honestly, the concepts are not that complicated. For example, a simple study for a remote viewer would be to find out a place said viewer has claimed to have gone to before in an astral form. Assuming they claim to be able to do it reliably, with good detail, and in real time, have them go the location and explain how it looks. Shortly after alter the location or else add things to it and see if they can identify it. If the person could not identify the changes, perhaps they are not a remote viewe or perhaps they were unable to identify with the place after the changes or whatever. It wouldn't prove a negative. BUT should the person identify specific changes, it would not take many repeats of the test to reach astronomical odds that something paranormal is not going on, (assuming outside influences and variables have been sufficently curtailed.)

If you disagree I am more than willing to here why. I am not well versed in the supposed paranormal enough to claim that I understand variables that would make such a study difficult. But based on how studies on other, material things are handled, I know that very often the base concept that the study frames around is pretty basic if you understand the scientific principles involved.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Linda Lane Magallon had done research into shared dreaming. I'm too lazy to scour the internets for details of her experiments, but I'm sure someone would be able to find something. The details of her research and experiments are most likely in her books, but there's bound to be something online.

Linda Lane Magallón

Thanks, I'll definitely look into that. I can count on you to provide some insight into shared dreaming.

**Hukif** · 11-06-2010 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by spockman

Simple not as in poorly thought out. Obviously detailed thought would have to go into a study to eliminate as many variables as possible. Research into the actual supernatural claims and opinions held by whatever subject you are testing would have to be accounted for as well. But honestly, the concepts are not that complicated. For example, a simple study for a remote viewer would be to find out a place said viewer has claimed to have gone to before in an astral form. Assuming they claim to be able to do it reliably, with good detail, and in real time, have them go the location and explain how it looks. Shortly after alter the location or else add things to it and see if they can identify it. If the person could not identify the changes, perhaps they are not a remote viewe or perhaps they were unable to identify with the place after the changes or whatever. It wouldn't prove a negative. BUT should the person identify specific changes, it would not take many repeats of the test to reach astronomical odds that something paranormal is not going on, (assuming outside influences and variables have been sufficently curtailed.)

If you disagree I am more than willing to here why. I am not well versed in the supposed paranormal enough to claim that I understand variables that would make such a study difficult. But based on how studies on other, material things are handled, I know that very often the base concept that the study frames around is pretty basic if you understand the scientific principles involved.

Well, depending on the place and the stuff being added there, it might be too simple and the person can just guess around, or be too complicated and will fail. Though if you are going to work on the variables, I don't see much of a problem (If done properly).

Anyway, what I mean by simple is that generally, the one who is the head of the experiment already believes on the stuff and oversimplifies said experiment (Consciously, unconsciously, doesn't matter) to get positive results, in which case, I wouldn't consider that as proof. And then we have the other side, the ones who don't believe make it too complicated and make it so that they will get negative results, so it’s just as unreliable.

Now then, RV is one of the phenomena which would be "simple" to prove, but a lot of the others are a bit harder. Like when working with dreams, you can't expect people to give each other passwords reliably, or for OBEs you can't trust people that they are indeed doing an OBE and not just WILDing without knowing, or stuff like AP which simply can't be proven, or TK which would require several tests with different materials to make sure the test isn't being blocked or cheating, and so on and so forth. (Though most of the problems are technical, so I guess you are right)