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 : 2040-2040 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/2040?) 2006/06/30 23:37:04
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#2040

From: Karl Boyken Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 1:24 pm Subject: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site kboyken Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° I came across this new essay on Ingo Swann's web site-- it's pretty interesting: Remote Viewing Processes and Layers of Meaning http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/rvandlayers.html -- Karl Boyken kboyken... http://soli.inav.net/~kboyken/ We dance 'round in a ring and suppose, while the Secret sits in the middle and knows. --Robert Frost pjrv : Messages : 2047-2070 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/2047?) 2006/06/30 23:39:50
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#2047

From: greenmn900... Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:06 am Subject: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site greenmn900... Send Email Send Email Karl, Thanks! That was a very interesting article and much easier to get through than most of Ingo's stuff (let's face, it the guy's writing becomes very pedantic after awhile, maybe he's just too damn smart, lol!) What did you think about it? It was a very good explanantion of why and how we make some of the associations we do while RVing. It also demonstrated to me that some information I've considered to be "symbolic" was probably closer to a "replacement -for" rather than a "symbol-for". What was also very intriguing was that Hella became able to identify when this was happening inside her own mind. That would be a VERY useful ability. It's also so suggestive that some of the best training for RV may be simply gathering as much real-world experience about as many different things as possible. The more we are familiar with, the more we can understand when we percieve via psi and then be able to report on whatever it is. Best regards, Don [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#2052

From: Karl Boyken Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 1:39 pm Subject: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site kboyken Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° So, Don, I'm not the only one who finds Ingo's writing a bit difficult to wade through? I enjoyed the historical account--sort of a "birth of AOL" account, and we'd been discussing AOL. And, right, it's interesting that Hella was able to identify times when there was data from the target that she was missing because it didn't mesh with anything in her range of experience. That would definitely be a useful ability. When you break an AOL down into descriptors, how do you know which descriptors are valid and which aren't? Taking the teapot AOL as an example, you could break it down into "heat, steam, metal" etc. But, you could also come up with things like "drinkable" or "whistling", things that might be attributes of a teapot and what it contains, but not a nuclear reactor. Karl -- Karl Boyken kboyken... http://soli.inav.net/~kboyken/ We dance 'round in a ring and suppose, while the Secret sits in the middle and knows. --Robert Frost ------------------------------- Moderator's note: Ingo's a good writer and a great thinker, but without an editor, his being redundantly redundant in redundancy is tough, plus the way he likes to separate every sentence (so these words are engraved in stone on the neurons of all mere mortals reading) makes things seem rather longer than they really are, LOL! But I still find that much of his writing has some very insightful and worthwhile stuff. -- Back to the Bat Cave now. -- PJ Reply | Forward

#2055

From: "Bo Kindstrand <031-7115905...m>" <031-7115905...m> Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:00 am Subject: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site bokindstrand Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° Karl Boyken When you break an AOL down into descriptors, how do you know which descriptors > are valid and which aren't? Taking the teapot AOL as an example, you could > break it down into "heat, steam, metal" etc. But, you could also come up with > things like "drinkable" or "whistling", things that might be attributes of a > teapot and what it contains, but not a nuclear reactor. You don't and you don't have to and you shouldn't. This is analysis and a viewer is not supposed to engage in that during session (or after the session for that matter). He simply just writes down the data on the sheet. Bo --------------------------- Moderator's note: Now that sounds good on paper. But the whole point of learning to take note of AOL is learning to better discern what is 'real' in your head, which is going to require at some point learning to break down your own AOLs if they happen. Stage 5 of formal CRV/TRV methodologies is also wholly dedicated to varying form of analysis in-session, being 'tools' to use including for this specific purpose of breaking down/out AOLs. My $.02 - PJ Reply | Forward

#2057

From: "intuitwolf " Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 6:25 pm Subject: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site intuitwolf Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° *** PJ said: Stage 5 of formal CRV/TRV methodologies is also wholly dedicated to varying form of analysis in-session, being 'tools' to use including for this specific purpose of breaking down/out AOLs. **** One thing to remember is that this type of work is not done prior to Stage 5 because until that point you want to avoid tossing yourself over to the analytical side. Stage 5 is analytical. For that reason, it's only done for those AOLs that you feel have significant merit and generally for those AOLs found in Stage 4 (at this stage you have enough data to make an informed decision about whether or not using S5 would be of value). Shelia Reply | Forward

#2062

From: "Glyn" Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:19 pm Subject: RE: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site gebega Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° Hi Bo and PJ, Moderator's note: Now that sounds good on paper. But the whole point of learning to take note of AOL is learning to better discern what is 'real' in your head, which is going to require at some point learning to break down your own AOLs if they happen. Stage 5 of formal CRV/TRV methodologies is also wholly dedicated to varying form of analysis in-session, being 'tools' to use including for this specific purpose of breaking down/out AOLs. My $.02 - PJ Agreed, you have to learn to recognise AOL as it occurs. Besides IMO nothing is or is not 'allowed', no matter who says it, when and how.. not enough is known about how psi works, and it's best not to get bogged down in other people's dogma. After learning as much as we can from the experience of others, it's down to what works for us as individuals. My .02p too :-) Kind regards, Glyn Reply | Forward

#2070

From: "Bo Kindstrand <031-7115905...m>" <031-7115905...m> Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 5:43 am Subject: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site bokindstrand Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° There is a time delay (approx. 0.2-0.5 sec) between the point where our senses pick up RV data from the target until it is presented for the conscious mind. During this in-between our sub (AOL's are formed here) has amply of time to create and insert a solution for the "problem" and present it to us as a Stray Cat (AOL). This picture is selected by the sub from the back of our head that seems to function as en enormous supply of pictures collected during our lifetime (and perhaps inherited ones to). This imagery is analytical conclusive and mind creations. "We" (our sub) are matching incoming RV data with one more or less randomly chosen similar picture, from this enormous collection of pictures. Some part of our mind just had to identify these impressions by making them into something. And it does so before the impression ever get to the conscious mind. And of course is it essential that we learn to distinguish between these different type of impressions and also learn how to unpack the AOL by going into them or if they already are a fact, break them down, as suggested These imaginations are easy distinguished from RV data as they always have FORM and FUNCTION and us such is identifiable by us. So this is easy, if we can identify it, it's an AOL and should be declared as such. These impressions are completely differently perceived and easily distinguished from perceived RV data that is fleeting, constantly moving, diffuse, more or less "black and white" and "unidentifiable". Bo - Reply | Forward

#2060

From: "Eva " Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 12:28 am Subject: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° That's part of the fun of it. When you go to break it down, most of the time, the subconscious will automatically push the relevent stuff into your consciousness first. SOmetimes it's obvious stuff and sometimes not. Other teapot stuff could be dusty (mine is cuz I never use it), hollow, metal, painted, squat, heavy, has a handle, old fashioned, etc. But you'll find that certain things spring to mind right off the bat and those are the ones you go with. Don't try to figure out what a teapot means to others, try to figure out what a teapot means to you at that moment in time. What does it remind you of? What aspects stick out? -E Reply | Forward

#2061

From: Weatherly-Hawaii... Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 3:33 pm Subject: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site maliolana Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° Aloha PJ, }Moderator's note: Ingo's a good writer and a great thinker, but without an editor, his being redundantly redundant in redundancy is tough, plus the way he likes to separate every sentence (so these words are engraved in stone on the neurons of all mere mortals reading) makes things seem rather longer than they really are, LOL! But I still find that much of his writing has some very insightful and worthwhile stuff. -- Back to the Bat Cave now. -- PJ{ I always enjoy Ingo...even if he is prone to repeat his points...It is said ...that we learn through repitition......maybe he just sees us (his reading public) as his RV children... Love & Light & Laughter Mali'o...aka...Dawna pjrv : Messages : 2056-2090 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/2056?) 2006/06/30 23:41:16
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#2056

From: Karl Boyken Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 12:12 pm Subject: Re: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site kboyken Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° Thanks, Bo and PJ. I guess the answer to how you determine what aspects of the AOL are valid is that you use your intuition? You develop a feel for what is on target and what isn't? Karl Reply | Forward

#2058

From: Karl Boyken Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 12:15 pm Subject: Re: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site kboyken Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° One other thing about Ingo's essay occurred to me. If our experience limits our ability to accurately remote view, then doesn't that make the RVing of esoteric targets all the more questionable? If a person can have trouble RVing a nuclear reactor because she had never seen one, how can we put much stock in any session where the target is an ET or a UFO or anything else outside of human experience? There must be huge amounts of missing target information in any esoteric session, and the results that are produced may well be misidentifications, the result of the subconscious trying to match stuff outside its experience with stuff it knows. -- Moderators note: I agree and that is why I believe that anyone RVing such targets may just be getting some fictional storyline, which is based on Edgar Cayce's statement that "thoughts are things" and the many statements made by RVers about accessing people's minds. Rich Reply | Forward

#2063

From: greenmn900... Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:18 pm Subject: Re: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site greenmn900... Send Email Send Email Glyn, You wrote: "Besides IMO nothing is or is not 'allowed', no matter who says it, when and how.. not enough is known about how psi works, and it's best not to get bogged down in other people's dogma. After learning as much as we can from the experience of others, it's down to what works for us as individuals" Amen. You just articultaed my whole philosophy! Not just as it regards RV either, but also concerning just about everything in life. Best Regards, Don [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#2065

From: greenmn900... Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:15 pm Subject: Re: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site greenmn900... Send Email Send Email Karl, You wrote: "If a person can have trouble RVing a nuclear reactor because she had never seen one, how can we put much stock in any session where the target is an ET or a UFO or anything else outside of human experience?" That's a very good point. I think there are many reasons why we can't put too much stock in the RVing of these kinds of subjects. You just came up with another great one. I used to think that if a UFO-related target was approached by targeting the specific time and place where a UFO event occurred, you could somewhat guage the accuracy of the session by seeing how much of the physical details of the site the RVer reported on. If the RVer was right in his/her description of the physical place where the event occurred then that would lend at least a little credence to the rest of the more alien and UFO-related material the RVer comes up with. But as time has passed and I've seen how practically every RV session is such a mixture of right and wrong data, I no longer think that even that approach would make the UFO session much more legitimate. Who knows how much of the information is right or wrong? But, regarding Rich's belief that RVers, when they target UFOs, may just be getting a fictional storyline - I wonder if anyone has ever had that happen to them and then be able to verify it afterwards. Has anyone ever RVed a fictional storyline either on purpose or accidentally? I am certain that "thoughts are things" as Cayce put it and can be accessed as easily as anything else. But has anyone ever accidentally RVed a fictional storyline when they were trying to RV a target? Btw Rich, what are your thoughts concerning the reality of UFOs and aliens? What do you think they are? When people report UFOs and abductions, etc. what do you believe is actually occurring? Just curious. Best Regards, Don [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#2071

From: "Eva " Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 9:32 pm Subject: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° --- In pjrv...ups.com, greenmn900...te: .....snip.... > Who > knows how much of the information is right or wrong? That's why people use more than one session. It has to be a project by a number of really good viewers. My personal opinion is that the end result would be neither any better or any worse than a project on anything else. I personally have done a good job at describing things in a session that I have no personal knowledge on. So I think it's oversimplified to say it can't be done. At times, I do find myself saying in a session that something seems outside my knowledge to comprehend, not because of just general rv lameness but because I don't have the knowledge. So it's not like the mind isn't capable of informing the viewer of important details like that. > > But, regarding Rich's belief that RVers, when they target UFOs, may just be > getting a fictional storyline - I wonder if anyone has ever had that happen > to them and then be able to verify it afterwards. I think that is a danger. That's also why UFO encounters that have photos and witnesses are preferred. That way you know something occured. You just don't know what. Sometimes you might view the 'UFO' event and find it's a street light or whatever. Has anyone ever RVed a > fictional storyline either on purpose or accidentally? I am certain that > "thoughts are things" as Cayce put it and can be accessed as easily as > anything else. But has anyone ever accidentally RVed a fictional storyline > when they were trying to RV a target? I know someone who once tasked Santa Claus just for fun and to see what happened. The viewers dutifully got Santa. So obviously, you can view a storyline. However, I have also seen viewers at a high level pick up on the storyline aspect. You might see things likes 'feels symbolic' or 'seems like a fairytale' or something like that. I have even gotten some of that myself. I think the most confusing for me is statues. SOmetimes I end up segwaying into what the statue represents and the end result is a very chaotic confusing session. I remember a story that when McMoneagle was in the unit, a guy came to him with a bs target that he wanted McMoneagle to 'view.' Apparently this guy had wanted to use this story for personal gain and had hoped that McMoneagle could be of use to him, I think it was by adding validity to the story. But McMoneagle picked up on the deception and came out of the session all pissed off and told the guy to beat it. I don't know what the hit rate would be for a really good viewer when it comes to picking up on bs, but there seems to be decent evidence that it is at least possible to do so. -E MOD NOTE: I remember Prudence Calabrese talking about this back on Farsight BB. She used Jack and the Beanstalk as an example, but I don't remember if she was talking about an actual RV case or talking theory. Rich Reply | Forward

#2066

From: "Bo Kindstrand <031-7115905...m>" <031-7115905...m> Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 3:30 am Subject: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site bokindstrand Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° Karl Boyken I guess the answer to how you determine what > aspects of the AOL are valid is that you use your intuition? You > develop a feel for what is on target and what isn't? If a data is declared as an AOL/S in its respective column on the Stage 4 sheet, you know that it can be worthwhile to work with it. So the decision to work with it could perhaps just be mechanical, but I guess that the intuition is always present when you work and are in the RV mode. Bo Reply | Forward

#2067

From: greenmn900... Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:55 pm Subject: Re: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site greenmn900... Send Email Send Email Karl, You wrote: "I guess the answer to how you determine what aspects of the AOL are valid is that you use your intuition? You develop a feel for what is on target and what isn't?" I think it depends on whether the aol is a result of conscious, rational conclusion or judgment-seeking behavior or if it's a pre-conscious form of aol that seems to just spring into the mind by itself. With the first kind, you can think back to what the exact perceptions were that you then put together in a way that seemed to "make sense". You try to get at the impressions that, when added together, you've formed into something,a conclusion based upon your perceptions. because those original, raw perceptions were probably accurate. It's what you formed them all into that isn't. With the pre-conscious kind of aol, I think it's much more difficult to tear down. The discussion in the thread about Ingo's essay and the teapot that Hella Hammid came up with as she was trying to find some frame of reference for a nuclear reactor is a good example. And I think the ideas people are giving for trying to examine the characteristics of the tea pot are a good way to go about getting at what the target really is. I think it was Eva who said the important aspects of this kind of aol will sort of jump to the forefront of your thoughts as you examine it. I believe she's right about this. But the hardest part with these pre-conscious aols is realizing that it's an aol in the first place, at least for me. Best Regards, Don [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#2068

From: "Linda & John Garvey" Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 8:30 am Subject: Re: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site linda_g7us Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° . You just articultaed my whole philosophy! Not just as it regards RV >either, but also concerning just about everything in life. >Best Regards, >Don Glyn and Don, Exactly! IMO, from my experience, this does hold true for everything in life. Linda G "The distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one." -- Albert Einstein -- _ Reply | Forward

#2069

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Tue Jan 21, 2003 9:53 pm Subject: Re: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site Rich_crv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° greenmn900...wrote: > > > But, regarding Rich's belief that RVers, when they target UFOs, may just be > getting a fictional storyline - I wonder if anyone has ever had that happen > to them and then be able to verify it afterwards. Has anyone ever RVed a > fictional storyline either on purpose or accidentally? I have tried to figure out how to test this but haven't come up with a good plan. > > > Btw Rich, what are your thoughts concerning the reality of UFOs and aliens? > What do you think they are? When people report UFOs and abductions, etc. > what do you believe is actually occurring? Just curious. > Best Regards, > Don > I am sure there are "others" out there somewhere and maybe some drop by here now and then but I feel that 99% of UFO/ET encounter reports are something else, a whole variety of something elses. To me, the large number of reports is the basis for the 99% figure. In most cases, I believe that "lights is lights". I could go on for pages on photos and hoaxes and yeah, underground bases and "I've seen the government's secret crash parts", etc. The current SOHO flap is hot news right now. "I predict!" ...it will go nowhere but into internet legend land. A few years ago I saw three strange lights in a hot hazy dusk sky, no sounds, no form or solid objects, just momentary bright lights. Maybe part of that 1% :) As for abductions.......that's a whole different area. I don't think its real in a physical sense. If it is, these alien critters aren't friendlies at all and should be treated like any other home invader or kidnapper. I have been putting off attending the "experiencer's" meetings at Rhine ( just too darn busy), but I would like to hear accounts of abductions and/or psi experiences live, first hand. One other thing.... I feel very strongly that if there is a government coverup on ET existence, or that anyone is withholding evidence of such under the guise of "national security" in this or any other country, then the people involved are guilty of treason to humanity and active participants in any real abductions and ET terrorism taking place. Rich Reply | Forward

#2072

From: greenmn900... Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 6:32 pm Subject: Re: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site greenmn900... Send Email Send Email Bo, Hold on now, it's not that simple. You wrote: "There is a time delay (approx. 0.2-0.5 sec) between the point where our senses pick up RV data from the target until it is presented for the conscious mind." How do we know that? Who has demonstrated repeatedly under controls that this time delay always holds true? Psi-tech claims it's 3-4 seconds and I've always wondered where they got that from. You wrote: "During this in-between our sub (AOL's are formed here) has amply of time to create and insert a solution for the "problem" and present it to us as a Stray Cat (AOL)." First off, I think most AOLS are created are by the conscious mind, not the subconscious. I think this because the term "analytical overlay" directly implies the overlay is created through analytical processes, which is usually held by most people to be a function of the rational, conclusion-seeking, assumption-making, logical part of the mind - and that's the conscious, not the subconscious. I don't think the sub does all that much analysis. It may do some memory-matching, but not really analyzing. However, I do agree that there is some pre-conscious overlays that occur. But as I said, I think it's more a case of memory-matching than true analytical processing. The sub calls up a memory that closely matches the RV perceptions and supplies that to the consciousness rather than the direct and indistinct psi-perceptions. You wrote: "These imaginations are easy distinguished from RV data as they always have FORM and FUNCTION and us such is identifiable by us. So this is easy, if we can identify it, it's an AOL and should be declared as such." No, if this is easy, all remote viewers could vastly increase their accuracy and always identify wrong data. But we can't. Even the best Rvers constantly produce wrong data. They constantly produce AOLS, even after decades of experience. The very best, most experienced Rvers *still* produce AOLS. You wrote: "These impressions are completely differently perceived and easily distinguished from perceived RV data that is fleeting, constantly moving, diffuse, more or less "black and white" and "unidentifiable"." But they *aren't* "easily distinguished" from RV data. The aspects you listed as being ways to identify AOLS are all true, they *are* usually aspects of AOLS, but not always. Some AOLS are just as fleeting, just as diffuse, and just as unidentifiable as real psi data. And some psi data is unusually clear, distinct, and lingering than the majority. The pre-conscious forms of AOLS are very much like real psi data, damn near indinstinguishable from it. I wish it was as cut-and-dried as that, but it's not. If it was, we'd all be world-class remote viewers. Best Regards, Don [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#2074

From: "Bo Kindstrand <031-7115905...m>" <031-7115905...m> Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 5:20 am Subject: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site bokindstrand Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° greenmn900...te: >"There is a time delay (approx. 0.2-0.5 sec) between the point >where our senses pick up RV data from the target until it is >presented for the conscious mind." >How do we know that? Who has demonstrated repeatedly >under controls that this time delay always holds true? Han H. Kornuber and his associate Lüder Deecke made the discovery. Essentially they examined bioelectrical phenomenon's that precedes spontaneous processes in the nervsystem They showed that we have an, what they termed a "Bereitschaftpotenital" that is a preparedness potential of approx. 0.8 sec in the brain before we act. Sometimes up to 1.5 sec. It means that before we become consciousness of and "decides" to act, something has already made that decision on our behalf. You are I are simply informed f this fact by that "something" and we our selves believe that we are making this decision- References: Hans H. Kornhuber & Lüder Deecke: "Hirnpotentialänderungen bei Willkürbewegungen und passiven Bewegungen des Menschen: Bereitschaftspotentiaund reafferente Potentialen", PFLÜGERS ARCHIV FÜR DIE GESAMTE PHYSIOOLOGIE DES MENSCHEN UND DER TIERE 284, 1-17. 1965. Lüder Deecke, Berta Grözinger & H.H Kornhuber: "Voluntary Finger Movement in Man: Cerebral Potential ande Theory", BIOLOGICAL CYBERNETICS 23, 99-119, 1976.eTherr are numerous other works that had been published during the years based on these findings. Do I have to list all of them here? >Psi-tech claims it's 3-4 seconds and I've >always wondered where they got that. Me to. Maybe its eeeeextended RV?J >You wrote: >"During this in-between our sub (AOL's are formed here) has >amply of time to create and insert a solution for the "problem" >and present it to us as a Stray Cat (AOL)." >First off, I think most AOLS are created are by the conscious >mind, not the subconscious. I think this because the term >"analytical overlay" directly implies the overlay is created >through analytical processes, which is usually >held by most people to be a function of the rational, >conclusion-seeking, assumption-making, logical part of the mind - and that's the conscious, not the subconscious. Well I wrote that the s o u r c e of all AOL's is the sub. And the formation of an AOL based on RV data from the target is of course the analytical part of the mind. An that's why they are called AOL; Analytical o v e r l a y s. The databit is cloaked with an overlay of a picture produced by the sub and the formation takes place in the conscious mind. The databit is colored by some in the psi channel remaining databit(s) that has been undeclared. >I don't think the sub does all that much analysis. It may >do some memory matching, but not really analyzing. Right its just eager to be of service and supply a solution "of the problem". >However, I do agree that there are some pre-conscious >overlays that occur. But as I said, I think it's more a case of >memory-matching than true analytical processing. The sub >calls up a memory that closely matches the RV perceptions >and supplies that to the consciousness rather than the direct >and indistinct psi-perceptions. >You wrote: >"These imaginations are easy distinguished from RV data as >they always have FORM and FUNCTION and us such is >identifiable by us. So this is easy, if we can identify it, it's an AOL >and should be declared as such." >No, if this is easy, all remote viewers could vastly increase their >accuracy and always identify wrong data. But we can't. Even the >best Rvers >constantly produce wrong data. They constantly produce AOLS, >even after decades of experience. The very best, most >experienced Rvers *still* produce AOLS. They are very accurate in distinguishing these data as AOL but they are not "wrong", just incorrect data. I cannot see the difficulty in it. And of course they all produce AOL´s otherwise it wouldn't be remote viewing. AOL formation is as integrated part of the RV process as raining in weather. AOL is no big problem. Just declare them to the right on the sheet and go on with the business. And if they persist take a brake. And if still there after the brake quit for the day. >'You wrote: >>easily distinguished from perceived RV data that is fleeting, >constantly moving, diffuse, more or less "black and white" and >"unidentifiable"." >But they *aren't* "easily distinguished" from RV data. The >aspects you listed as being ways to identify AOLS are all true, >they *are* usually aspects of AOLS, but not always. Some >AOLS are just as fleeting, just as diffuse, and just as >unidentifiable as real psi data. And some psi data is >unusually clear, distinct, and lingering than the majority. The >pre-conscious forms of AOLS are very much like real psi data, >damn near indinstinguishable from it. I wish it was as >cut-and-dried as that, but it's not. If it was, we'd all be >world-class remote viewers. There is one simple rule an AOL has FORM and FUNCTION. If you can identify it it´s an AOL. If not it's no RV data... IMO all AOL's are pre-conscious. If not they are not even an AOL but something we have imagined outside the RV process. But then we are not RVing off course as we have no signal line contact with the target. Bo Reply | Forward

#2075

From: "Scott Ellis " Date: Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:06 pm Subject: RV perception time delay, AOLs scottrver Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° > Bo wrote: > "There is a time delay (approx. 0.2-0.5 sec) between the point > where our senses pick up RV data from the target until it is > presented for the conscious mind." > > Don wrote: > How do we know that? Who has demonstrated repeatedly under controls that > this time delay always holds true? Psi-tech claims it's 3-4 seconds and I've > always wondered where they got that from. > To the best of my knowledge, the MEG and EEG studies have not yet determined when or where any psi data is received in the brain. The mechanism is not known and thus any claim as to how the data gets processed is pure conjecture. (Hopefully Ed May will have addressed some of these questions in his PJRV interview.) Based on Don's posts, my methodology and perceptions are almost identical to his. It is not uncommon for me to have Kodak quality, full color, flashes of images that I immediately comprehend as to their form and function and which turn out to match the feedback photo almost perfectly. In my book that's not AOL, it's data. I think it's impossible to recognize the difference between good data and bad in that circumstance unless the image seems to be nonsense. Scott Reply | Forward

#2083

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 6:28 pm Subject: Re: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site docsavagebill Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360° Hello Don, I think that comes from physiological data that demonstrates that we don't know what we are sensing for about that long. However, studies with people that are bias to expect one thing and get another can get a delay of 15 seconds or so and some for 2 minusted before they see what's really there. This is done by getting them to GUESS what they think they see as a screen comes slowly into focus. If they don't guess they get it in second or two after full focus. It they guess at it while out of focus ( AOLing??) and guess wrong it takes like up to a minute after the pic isin full focus to see whats there. So guessing (AOLing?) blinds one to the truth. But I think a minimum time of 0.2 seconds is correct. Best Regards, Bill - Reply | Forward

#2073

From: greenmn900... Date: Wed Jan 22, 2003 7:03 pm Subject: Re: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site greenmn900... Send Email Send Email Eva, You wrote: " So I think it's oversimplified to say it can't be done." Did I say it can't be done? I don't recall that. You wrote: "At times, I do find myself saying in a session that something seems outside my knowledge to comprehend, not because of just general rv lameness but because I don't have the knowledge." Me too. You wrote: " SOmetimes I end up segwaying into what the statue represents and the end result is a very chaotic confusing session. " ME TOO!!! I've always had a problem with statues since I first started RVing and I still do! Sometimes I think they are real people or animals or whatever it is they represent. Other times I know there's a statue of somekind but don't know what it represents. Statues are a real pain for me, always have been. I *have* RVed reported strange phenomonena that I firmly believe was nothing. I get lots of unrelated data, just trivia-type stuff, sometimes physical descriptions of the site, and the whole time there's this underlying feeling of frustration building in me that I usually never have, even when I'm blowing a regular target. Every time I've gotten this feeling it turns out to be some weird subject with no real evidence to back it up. But then there's other targets that were strange phenomena that produced all kinds of data and left me wondering what the hell is real and what isn't. Best Regards, Don [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#2085

From: greenmn900... Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 10:18 am Subject: Re: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site greenmn900... Send Email Send Email Hi Bo, You wrote: "Han H. Kornuber and his associate Lüder Deecke made the discovery." and you wrote: "Therr are numerous other works that had been published during the years based on these findings. Do I have to list all of them here?" Thanks for the reference. That's fascinating research. No, you don't have to list any more references. I wasn't challenging you on this, I was just curious as it's an area I don't know anything about. :-) You wrote: " The databit is cloaked with an overlay of a picture produced by the sub and the formation takes place in the conscious mind" I think this is where we differ. I think pre-concious memory-matching occurs in the sub. In pre-conscious memory-matching, I believe the sub suppresses the actual psi data almost completely and REPLACES it with a picture produced and formed by the sub. This is then presented to the consciousness in that form. But I think an overlay that is analytical in nature (AOL) is formed in the conscious mind. I have no references to back this up, it's just opinion on my part, based on my own experience. You wrote: "They are very accurate in distinguishing these data as AOL but they are not "wrong", just incorrect data." I'm using the terms "wrong" and "incorrect" interchangeably. I understand that you believe often when an expereinced RVer produces an incorrect result, they are sometimes just "off the signal line". I agree with you on this, although I don't think of it in terms of a "signal line" as I don't believe there is really any such thing as a "signal line". I understand it more as a matter of the RVer being "incorrectly focused" - focused in the wrong space/time instead of the target. But I think we both agree on this what is happening. Btw, I understand that some RV groups would not agree with us at all, they believe RVers are ALWAYS "on-target" (or as you would put it "on signal") and that any mistakes come from improper processing. You wrote: "And of course they all produce AOL´s otherwise it wouldn't be remote viewing. AOL formation is as integrated part of the RV process as raining in weather" No, I don't agree with this because I've done session with no AOLS at all. It's not very common but it *does* happen. Actually, for me a big part of the process of developing as a remote viewer has been learning to decrease the amount of AOLS that I create. You wrote: "There is one simple rule an AOL has FORM and FUNCTION. If you can identify it it´s an AOL" I don't believe that rule always holds true. Here's why: I'm a very visual remote viewer. The majority of my data comes in very quick and fleeting flash-images. Sometimes I'll get a visual of a person's face that is clear and distinct enough to enable me to draw a person's face so that the target person is easily recognizable from the sketch. That data, the image of the face I perceived, has both FORM and FUNCTION. And I can identify it as a face. Is that an AOL? I don't believe so because the data was perfectly correct. There was nothing overlaid upon the incoming psi data. It was raw and pure psi data. It shows no signs of being analyzed at all. If there is nothing overlaid upon the psi data, how can it be an analytic overlay? You wrote: "IMO all AOL's are pre-conscious. If not they are not even an AOL but something we have imagined outside the RV process. " By this do you mean that you believe analysis takes place within the subconscious? Or in a pre-conscious area separate from both the sub and the conscious? I believe just the opposite. I think that true analysis (hence; true AOLS) is a conscious process. This is where the mind takes incoming bits of psi data and tries to fit them together in a way that makes sense to the conscious, rational mind - judging the psi data as it comes in and attempting to make assumptions and reach conclusions based on the data. I think this process of analysis is a rational, logical process and that rationality and logicality is not an attribute of the subconscious. I believe what takes place in the pre-conscious area is more a matter of matching memories to the incoming psi data. With this, the mind is considering the data and basically saying, "It's like this (blank) that you are familiar with". I believe this is one of many ways the subconscious communicates with the conscious. Dreams are very similiar. However, I DO believe that a lot of processing of psi data takes place just prior to, and just under our awareness. I see some areas where we agree and others where we disagree. But I appreciate your opinions and understand why you believe as you do. Best Regards, Don [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Reply | Forward

#2090

From: greenmn900... Date: Sat Jan 25, 2003 7:17 pm Subject: Re: Re: Interesting essay on Ingo Swann's web site greenmn900... Send Email Send Email Bill, But that's regarding ordinary sensorial input. It's not testing what we are discussing, which is psi input. Two different things with, I think, two vastly different mechanisms. Check out my post to Scott on Dean Radin's work with "presentiment". It explains it in detail. Best Regards, Don

// 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