EEG and Remote Viewing Experiment
(Image of reconstructed image extracted from brain activity at Japan’s ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories)
My wife has a BrainMaster 4 channel clinical EEG (Electroencephalograph) machine that we’ve been leaving dormant in the rec room. It requires a 3.5 floppy drive and serial port (which we have on only one system in our home). We’ll be putting this to work on our remote viewing experiments to see if there is any spike in unexpected bandwidths.
The bulk of significant studies I’ve found utilizing EEG equipment revolve around groups or individuals under the use of cannabis or other mind-altering substances. I also take issue with the approach of using subjects who do not consider themselves to be developed remote viewers. See “The Influence of Psychedelics on Remote Viewing” by Jean Millay, Ph.D.
I feel that to form an accurate hypothesis for electroencephalograph as related to remote viewing you must form control data from people who believe to be remote viewers and people who believe to not be remote viewers while conducting remote viewing tasks. These should form a data set that you can base the brainwave activity of other subjects against. This testing process may also show no significant differences between brainwave activity in the subjects, leaving us to attempt another method of measurement.
My hunch is that a remote viewer might register higher levels of delta or theta brainwave activity, possibly a combination of both. This could be interpreted as either remote viewing being a product of the imagination, set off by small unintentional “clues” left by the test administrators, or as some kind of quantum interaction between these particular frequencies of brain activity and an as yet unknown conduit of information. The subtle “clue” issue was a major factor in the negative evaluation of the “Stargate” experiments conducted from the 1970s into the 1990s by the US government. (See The Randi Educational Foundation)
My own thoughts on the matter, as someone who has been having involuntary bouts with remote viewing for over twenty years, is that the phenomena have to do with particles culled from what we perceive as the future flooding areas of the brain with information it hasn’t processed yet. For example, I believe the you can only remote view what you will eventually see in some context. A remote viewer used in military applications may remote view an item in their twenties but they will actually be “seeing” a photograph of the item that they will be exposed to in their thirties.
It has been proven that the brain stores visual information in the same way we see it. Just last month researchers at Japan’s ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories unveiled a tool that successfully reconstructs images based upon the mind’s output.
“The scientists were able to reconstruct various images viewed by a person by analyzing changes in their cerebral blood flow. Using a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine, the researchers first mapped the blood flow changes that occurred in the cerebral visual cortex as subjects viewed various images held in front of their eyes. Subjects were shown 400 random 10 x 10 pixel black-and-white images for a period of 12 seconds each. While the fMRI machine monitored the changes in brain activity, a computer crunched the data and learned to associate the various changes in brain activity with the different image designs.
Then, when the test subjects were shown a completely new set of images, such as the letters N-E-U-R-O-N, the system was able to reconstruct and display what the test subjects were viewing based solely on their brain activity.”
When I enter a remote viewing state I’ve described it as two different types of escalating events. First I hear what I can describe as radio chatter. It’s broken and choppy with static noise engulfing it. This gives me key phrases or pieces of related dialog to latch on to. When I zero in on a topic I’m presented by what can be described as a layout of photographic thumbnails for me to further zoom in to. This setup is similar to a google image search where a key phrase is entered and I am presented with choices. If I elect to focus in further on one image I’m presented with more related images. The images, however, are often highly quantized and of poor resolution. I have to work very hard to describe what I’m seeing because I’m not really sure myself.
As these test progress I’ll keep you all posted.
Side Notes: EEG machines are commonly used in clinical study to measure brain activity in cases of epilepsy, delirium, and catatonia, but the system itself can be used to measure an stimulation response in the human mind. For further reading see Electroencephalography
Hello, I just did a quick search for Remote Viewing and EEG and your blog popped up, specifically this post. I haven’t had a chance to look through your other posts yet – perhaps you can guide me to the information after reading my comments here.
First, a bit about me: I’m a grad student studying Remote Viewing, specifically accuracy and QEEG profile changes throughout remote viewing training. I’ve conducted two pilot studies, the first involved a 16wk training course, the second involved a 6 week training course. All the data is not completely analyzed and interpreted yet – but as soon as it is I’d be more than happy to share my results with you.
You might want to look for the article by Dr. M. Persinger where he tested the artist Ingo Swann during remote viewing using a 3-channel EEG: Remote viewing with the artist Ingo Swann: neuropsychological profile, electroencephalographic correlates, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and possible mechanisms. ….Actually you might not be able to find it. I have a crappy copy that I crapily scanned myself if you’d like to see it – i put it in pdf format, I could email it to you.
I used an 8-channel QEEG for my first two pilot studies. I’m switching to a 19channel QEEG for my follow up study which will include a control group, which my first two pilot studies did not have (each participant served as their own control – within subject design – which means I can always collect control data at another time).
Finally – how is your research going?
BTW, Welcome to the site. Do you mind if I call you Rick Roll?
James Randi recently canceled his $1,000,000 prize for any demonstration of paranormal anything under scientifically controlled circumstances.
But, there remain many prizes worldwide for such things. One in China is for $50,000, I think.
If you can provide a demonstration that remote viewing has any efficacy whatsoever, to this dude in China, you can score an easy $50,000. I think there are bigger prizes elsewhere.
What do you think?
Ha! Well, I don’t think anyone has set out to prove anything here. I’m interested in seeing what my brainwaves do when I’m doing what I perceive as remote viewing. I may be picking up on subtle clues, or there may be a genuine paranormal event happening… but either way I’d like to compare raw data and start from there. In my reading I’ve found that the US government remote viewing experiments had a statistical average of just over 50%. That falls with a typical 5% margin of error that would suggest it’s all pure chance when done in clinical settings. This could mean that all remote viewing is bunk or it could mean that only a handful of people in the experiment could actually do it and it their results were averaged in with a group who could not perform. I’d like to see statistics on each individual remote viewer in those experiments before I’m willing to pass judgment either way. That said, I’m just looking to see what the differences are between a normal brain state during a similar task which I associate with no paranormal activity and a brain state I perceive as paranormal. If there is no change then it’s likely that I’m having delusions of super powers. If there is a difference then I’m interested in knowing why.