Remote viewing non-human perceptions

Tasker and viewer act as a team. They together performs the task of RV.
The tasker need only have an idea about what the target should be, but the RV protocol calls for the task directive to be written down so it can be presented in a solid way later.

Technically it (seems to) work like this: The viewer can view the target once he is assign the task to do so. The target can be decided either before or after the RV session. It does not matter. The whole thing works outside of common ideas of time and space.

The tasker's opinions about the target plays in to it, and in a case like this, with targeting non human perceptions, it is quite likely his ideas that comes through; That is, it is his opinion that is the actual target, even if he didn't want it to be.

I agree with part of that, but don’t see how you’re saying the tasker’s or monitor’s opinions are actually the target of the RVer when all are (or should be) blind to the target?

Can you explain some more about the relationship between RVer and Tasker?

This is helpful

Thanks very much for that. So what do you see as different from that, compared to say the Sony telepathy experiments, or ganzfeld, Ouija board, or Stage hypnotism etc...?

I think the operating principle is generally the same, but I’d say the main difference - at least in most protocols - is that the target is most often a location and there is no “sender”. The RVer is not attempting to read anyone’s mind or channel any spirit. The RVer is attempting to pick up sense impressions and general intuitions associated with the target location.

Thanks very much for that. So what do you see as different from that, compared to say the Sony telepathy experiments, or ganzfeld, Ouija board, or Stage hypnotism etc...?

That is quite a wide question and I can't claim that I understand it.
RV is supposed to be a form of controlled and deliberate clairvoyance. There is of course a chance of telepathic influences getting mixed into it. 

I don't know what Sony have done. But a common Ganzfield test does in fact appears similar to RV, in that you have a sender/tasker and a receiver/viewer.

Ouija boards and hypnotism is outside of my knowledge frame. I don't know anything about it.

I agree with part of that, but don’t see how you’re saying the tasker’s or monitor’s opinions are actually the target of the RVer when all are (or should be) blind to the target?

I am having a debate about the term RV-blind elsewhere. The thing is no one knows what it means, there are various opinions of what it means, and people do not want to agree on anything.

I'm driving the thesis, and others with me, that the term "blind" means you do not know the target; That is, you are not informed of anything; The sealed envelope kind of thing; All you get is a sealed envelope, that's all. Blind has got nothing to do with that you don't know how a bat is perceiving the world. The bat has got nothing to do with it. The bat did not task your, nor will it offer you any feedback to verify your session.

If you task something where there is no feedback available then the whole thing will be left hanging.

But the tasker has written the target on a piece of paper, and the RVer is trying to get a hit on the target?  So I'd like to understand why slorri feels it's different.

Maybe I'm conflating the term "tasker" with "monitor". The monitor is the person who sits in the room with the RVer and asks questions. That person should not know anything about the target.

The "tasker" - the person who puts something in a sealed envelope - I guess would know something unless the task is chosen at random from a pool and placed in the sealed envelope without anyone seeing it. ...but then I guess someone had to create the pool of possible targets... unless you take any human interaction out and get some kind of AI to pick targets without human input.

I am having a debate about the term RV-blind elsewhere. The thing is no one knows what it means, there are various opinions of what it means, and people do not want to agree on anything.

I'm driving the thesis, and others with me, that the term "blind" means you do not know the target; That is, you are not informed of anything; The sealed envelope kind of thing; All you get is a sealed envelope, that's all. Blind has got nothing to do with that you don't know how a bat is perceiving the world. The bat has got nothing to do with it. The bat did not task your, nor will it offer you any feedback to verify your session.

If you task something where there is no feedback available then the whole thing will be left hanging.

The reason I ask about non-human perceptions is that animals would certainly assign significance differently or have different sense impressions at a location.

Ask a human to remote view the South Congress Bridge over Lady Bird Lake in Austin TX and the person might describe the ordinary things a human would find significant: cars, arches, tall buildings, people engaged in water sports on the river/lake, etc. But ask someone to RV the same spot from a bat's perspective and maybe the RVer would not even pick up the strong visuals like tall buildings or water sports, and instead describe things upside down and have the impression that this feels like a home surrounded by friends and family, maybe auditory impressions would be much more significant than visual impressions, or at dusk perhaps a strong hunger for mosquitos?

The reason I ask about non-human perceptions is that animals would certainly assign significance differently or have different sense impressions at a location.

Ask a human to remote view the South Congress Bridge over Lady Bird Lake in Austin TX and the person might describe the ordinary things a human would find significant: cars, arches, tall buildings, people engaged in water sports on the river/lake, etc. But ask someone to RV the same spot from a bat's perspective and maybe the RVer would not even pick up the strong visuals like tall buildings or water sports, and instead describe things upside down and have the impression that this feels like a home surrounded by friends and family, maybe auditory impressions would be much more significant than visual impressions, or at dusk perhaps a strong hunger for mosquitos?

I understand. And yes, it could be experimented with, and possibly has. I don't know.

A parallel to my line of argument here is the many attempts to RV the location of "Jesus". All the attempts are different, as far as I know, because there exist no feedback for the task.They are not hitting any real "location of Jesus", they are hitting ideas of the location of Jesus.