Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info
Remote Viewing info page spacer

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion, Yahoo Groups.
Source Location: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/
Filetype: Archive. Topic: Remote Viewing. Blocked: by topic detail.
Archive Storage: www.firedocs.com/pjrv/ and http://www.dojopsi.info/pjrv/
Archivist: Palyne PJ Gaenir (PJRV, Palyne, Firedocs RV, TKR and the Dojo Psi.? )



begin archive





pjrv : Messages : 34?-363 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/34??? ) ?
?1:?4:46
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#34?

From: "Hoyt A. Stearns Jr." Date: Fri Aug ?, ?00? 8:53 pm Subject: ARV & Error Correcting Codes hstearnsjr Greetings, As a computer engineer and one who's been involved in RV for 6 years or so, it occurred to me that the errors in ARV could be corrected using the same methods that are used in electronic transmission ( CD music, computer hard disk drives, digital radio, etc. ? ). Since all of these physical information transmission methods can have large numbers of errors in transmission, "error correcting codes" are used to correct these ( If you deeply scratch a music CD, it's quite possible you won't hear it at all due to the error correction that occurred.? ). Extra information is transmitted that can be used to detect and correct any errors in the original information. This is a very advanced science by now. One advantage to using this in ARV may be that the subconscious won't fathom what's happening and just let the redundant information through unfettered. I'm just beginning to investigate this, but it seems promising. As an example, a trivial and very simple case is to setup an ARV session with a binary question (yes/no? ), but have two separate targets: the real question, then a second target: "is my first result correct?". This can detect an error if they disagree, but not correct it because you don't know "who's lying". You could add a third target: "which of the two previous targets is lying?". You can see that with a few more such targets, the reliability of the result can become quite high. At a higher level, however, my opinion is that you can't subvert your subconscious. If you deeply believe that "making money this way is inappropriate", and that is your ARV goal, you won't succeed. You must first resolve your personal beliefs about that. Best Regards, Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona -------------------- Moderator's note: Thanks Hoyt, let us know how that goes - it sounds interesting! I wonder if there's some way to task the follow-ons in ways other than yes/no (more symbolic, I mean, like say, birds flying vs. the barren moon or whatever -- sort of ARV'ing the ARV but for the sake of symbology possibly making it easier -- though that might get us into the dilemma Pru talked about, of just not believing we could answer the question directly to begin with? ). I know you know this, but others might not -- in regular RV, one of the primary reasons for working in protocol and without frontloading is just for this "error correcting" reason -- because if you rule out every possible minute source of data transfer _besides_ psi, then when the viewer says something that DOES match the target, you know that they are in target contact, and that can be critical info for an analyst to have. -- PJ

#35?

From: "Jason S. Shapiro" Date: Sat Aug 3, ?00? 11:51 am Subject: Re: ARV & Error Correcting Codes fetik3 On ? Aug ?00? at 18:53, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: > As an example, a trivial and very simple case is to setup an ARV > session with a binary question (yes/no? ), but have two separate > targets: the real question, then a second target: "is my first result > correct?". I understand your model (being a software engineer myself? ), but since you can't trust any of the answers (is 'x' lying; is 'y' lying about 'x' lying; is 'z' lying about 'y' lying about 'x' lying, ad nauseam? ), the error checking ends up being nothing more than "what answer received the most votes." So I think it may be clearer for a viewer to just simply cue up different targets based on the same associations as the previous ones (i.e. each session uses different targets, but the feedback will bet determined by the exact same question? ). This is basically what Dr. Charles Tart did with his "shell game" study. I don't have the reference in front of me, but if my memory serves me correctly, he basically had a person choose which computer simulated "shell" had an item underneath it. The computer would shuffled the shells and the person would select again and again, until a significant number of trials had passed. The shell which the person picked the most (in this particular study? ) ended up having the item underneath it. It seems to be an effective way to filter out the "noise" from the "signal line"... has anyone experimented with this? -Jason

#363

From: "smitty97006" Date: Sat Aug 3, ?00? 3:30 pm Subject: Re: ARV & Error Correcting Codes smitty97006 --- In pjrv...son S. Shapiro" On ? Aug ?00? at 18:53, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: So I think it may be clearer > for a viewer to just simply cue up different targets based > on the same associations as the previous ones (i.e. > each session uses different targets, but the feedback > will bet determined by the exact same question? ). > > This is basically what Dr. Charles Tart did with his "shell > game" study. I don't have the reference in front of me, > but if my memory serves me correctly, he basically had > a person choose which computer simulated "shell" had > an item underneath it. The computer would shuffled the > shells and the person would select again and again, > until a significant number of trials had passed. The > shell which the person picked the most (in this particular > study? ) ended up having the item underneath it. It > seems to be an effective way to filter out the "noise" > from the "signal line"... has anyone experimented with > this? > > -Jason Yes this is something that Greg K. did and he talked about on his ARV site (It may still be there? ). Where he did multiple sessions (He was doing a short like 5 minute visualization kind of thingy? ) on the same question over and over using different targets assigned to his question. After doing like 1? sessions on the same question he was able to take whichever binary answer had the majority of hits on it and that answer would be correct at a very high rate, something like 85 to 90% of the time. This made perfect sense to me and looked to be a great system. But it would seem that he has since abandoned this and I can not fathom he would have done so had it continued to produce such a high hit rate. Last post I saw him make on the subject he was using an almost direct to the question system where he would cue his question and in session get a metaphor of some type to answer his binary question. Which is exactly what Pru ending up going to (Using a direct to the question RV session? ). Gene Smith

#356

Date: Sat Aug 3, ?00? 1?:16 pm Subject: Re: ARV & Error Correcting Codes dennanm Howdy Hoyt, --- In pjrv...yt A. Stearns Jr." Extra information is transmitted that can be used to > detect and correct any errors in the original information. > This is a very advanced science by now. I've been thinking about this since I saw your post. I was reminded last night of this woman I met a long time ago, who used a type of RV (not really RV, it wasn't double blind, but the approach was the same? ) in THERAPY. She would write down a given thing (s? ) that she wanted the person to perceive or experience, and then she would walk the person through it as (an allegedly? ) psychic target. Of course since she was the tasker and knew the target, this amounted to hypnosis one way or another, but she called it RV. She got pretty profound results with this. She told me that she could 'program in' something so that when the subject got to a certain point of perception or experience, she would know (e.g., would write in the private (or what some call 'implied'? ) tasking that they would hear a ringing sound, or something like that? ), so when they described that, she knew what was going on. So I was thinking last night, ok, well why couldn't a tasker program in a given thing? Then I realized, well the tasker is ALREADY programming in a given thing - the target! So much for that theory. You realize, if a physics and metaphysics system of "probabilities" is in fact the way our realities operate, then we are probably going about ARV all wrong. In that case, the goal would be to find a way to keep the self 'on the same probability line' from point of session to point of feedback. Which would definitely be a personal and subjective thing... I don't even know if there's a way to make that possible (even if there was, the issue of belief systems would come up again in terms of what people choose to have happen in that model? ). > One advantage to using this in ARV may be that > the subconscious won't fathom what's happening > and just let the redundant information through unfettered. > I'm just beginning to investigate this, but it seems promising. It sounds interesting. Let us know how it turns out. I sometimes wonder if all the attempts to 'fool' the subconscious are part of the problem (Pru touched on this in a different light? ), you know, if what our body-self-consciousness wants is for us to work WITH it, and get to KNOW it, not to be ever-plotting new ways of taking it OUT of the equation of our lives... > This can detect an error if they disagree, but > not correct it because you don't > know "who's lying". You could add a third target: > "which of the two previous targets is lying?". > You can see that with a few more such targets, the > reliability of the result can become quite high. Hmmmmn. Well it's a logical idea. I hope it works. Some of what you're talking about kind of impinges on what Dr. May referred to as "Decision Augmentation Theory". In the lab, they had to have some human look at a session, and decide which target it matched. This theory postulates that there may be psi operational in the person doing the judging, which can increase or decrease the "match" result %. In a way you're suggesting something similar, that one try to "piggyback" psi of multiple persons or multiple sessions in a way to 'increase' the accuracy of the analysis results. However my experience with binary dowsing is that it doesn't work for me very consistently; I get 'some data matching the target' in RV far more often %-wise than a successful binary. But if you were using ARV for tasking the follow-on questions, that might work better... > At a higher level, however, my opinion is that > you can't subvert your subconscious. I don't believe so either - mostly because I believe in psi. If you really believe in psi, then the attempts to "fool oneself" just sound really funny, you know, if the self could be that oblivious, how could it do RV. :-? ) > If you deeply believe that "making money this way is > inappropriate", and that is your ARV goal, you won't > succeed. You must first resolve your personal beliefs > about that. I agree, though I have no real experience with ARV for that to mean anything! I know I had a problem with precog targets (targets randomly generated AFTER the session was done? ) until I made myself do it for awhile, and then most of that cleared up, just because I saw it was possible... though I still think I need a lot more practice to get it fully "into" my core belief systems. Regards, PJ

// end archive

Top of Page

Remote Viewing info page spacer

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives


Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info