Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Remote viewing non-human perceptions
#1
Has this been experimented with by anyone?

I was thinking about how remote viewers realized at some point that they needed to be specific about time and not merely location.

This got me thinking: it is like when I go to google to figure out when and where the 4th of July fireworks show is supposed to be and I accidentally end up reading some outdated article from years past... Google is providing me something that held significance over a greater span of time than the upcoming show I was actually intending to get info on, so what Google finds significant doesn’t match up with my present intentions.

Then this got me to thinking: why is all that is required for remote viewing a place and time? Even GPS coordinates are sufficient. No need to specify a radius of perception or elevation or zoom level. There’s nearly an infinite number of things going on at any given time and place, so who is assigning significance?

As an example, I recall reading about a remote viewing experiment with McMoneagle where the GPS coordinates of the St Louis Arch were in a sealed envelope. And Joe successfully described the arch. But there were a million other things going on in the vicinity. To all the animals in the area, the Arch was insignificant.

It is interesting that remote viewers have perceptions as if they were physically present in a human body with human perceptual biases and human interests.

So has anyone ever specified in remote viewing a location, time, AND alternate type or organism of perception? E.G. dusk at a certain bat infested bridge from the bats’ perspectives? Or maybe do the St Louis Arch again, but specify the school of fish swimming in the river below who don’t even notice the Arch.
[-] The following 2 users Like Hurmanetar's post:
  • Laird, Ninshub
Reply
#2
From my limited understanding, the remote viewer is not entering another human's perception (not that you are implying this), so it wouldn't make sense that they would enter another animal or organism's perceptive abilities. (?) Perhaps they could remote view from the location of those organisms, however.

Although there appears to be this:


Quote:Projection of a Familiar: This is a variation of etheric projection in which a Thought Form of an animal or person is created from etheric and astral substance under direction of the projector—either with a single duty "charge," or a longer-term duty charge. It is sometimes called "indirect psychic spying" in contrast to Remote Viewing.
http://www.llewellyn.com/journal/article/2246
[-] The following 3 users Like Ninshub's post:
  • Laird, Doug, Hurmanetar
Reply
#3
(09-27-2017, 03:22 AM)Hurmanetar Wrote: Has this been experimented with by anyone?

I was thinking about how remote viewers realized at some point that they needed to be specific about time and not merely location.

This got me thinking: it is like when I go to google to figure out when and where the 4th of July fireworks show is supposed to be and I accidentally end up reading some outdated article from years past... Google is providing me something that held significance over a greater span of time than the upcoming show I was actually intending to get info on, so what Google finds significant doesn’t match up with my present intentions.

Then this got me to thinking: why is all that is required for remote viewing a place and time? Even GPS coordinates are sufficient. No need to specify a radius of perception or elevation or zoom level. There’s nearly an infinite number of things going on at any given time and place, so who is assigning significance?

As an example, I recall reading about a remote viewing experiment with McMoneagle where the GPS coordinates of the St Louis Arch were in a sealed envelope. And Joe successfully described the arch. But there were a million other things going on in the vicinity. To all the animals in the area, the Arch was insignificant.

It is interesting that remote viewers have perceptions as if they were physically present in a human body with human perceptual biases and human interests.

So has anyone ever specified in remote viewing a location, time, AND alternate type or organism of perception? E.G. dusk at a certain bat infested bridge from the bats’ perspectives? Or maybe do the St Louis Arch again, but specify the school of fish swimming in the river below who don’t even notice the Arch.

Don't know a great deal about remote viewing, but I've not incorporated how it's suggested to work, into my own ideas. I've just not seen evidence that was sufficiently strong to make me change my own ideas. Either there are problems with sensory leakage, I don't trust the experimenters, the judging is difficult etc. And even if I get past these types of experimental problems, I never seem to find that the suggested method as to how RV works, can be demonstrated. Instead the older ideas, seeing the future, telepathy/mediumship etc always seem to be left on the table.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Max_B's post:
  • Hurmanetar
Reply
#4
(09-27-2017, 04:05 AM)Ninshub Wrote: From my limited understanding, the remote viewer is not entering another human's perception (not that you are implying this), so it wouldn't make sense that they would enter another animal or organism's perceptive abilities. (?) Perhaps they could remote view from the location of those organisms, however.

Although there appears to be this:


http://www.llewellyn.com/journal/article/2246

Right. All I'm saying is that at any given time and place there's almost an infinite number of ways to perceive and assign significance to what is happening. And even the very notion of "place and time" is fuzzy. Why don't we have to specify a radius around the point of interest? Why don't we have to specify a duration?

If you were to imagine for a moment that everything happening at a location is cascading information - quadrillions of bits of information - like the data in the matrix, it is only the interface of the body that enables that mass of data to be turned into something like a perception. If you change the type of body, the perceptual filters change and significance associated with the available data changes. It isn't obvious why remote viewers always seem to view things as if they were in a human body with human interests at that location.

There's a tremendous amount of subconscious processing that goes into our perceptions which we take for granted. Our brains/minds automatically break reality up into certain patterns and assign significance. 

Either remote viewing is relying on some sort of other intelligence (like Google's AI) to guess what information and perceptions the viewer might find significant or there is a web of meaningful connections that is somehow directly perceivable (which is my operating assumption) and the fact the remote viewer is human means that things that would be significant to a human are what the remote viewer gravitates towards.

So it would be interesting to do some remote viewing experiments where time, place, AND type of body or organism is specified.
Reply
#5
RVers use this tool b/c it allows them to more easily read the vibration of the information recorded about the target by the Session Manager. Long/lat, image, written, whatever.

Sort of like this.






Carnac
[/url]
[url=https://youtu.be/9m_dT0wsrGI]LOL
Existence is not subject to time; time is subject to Existence.
Reply
#6
As a remote viewer I can perhaps enlighten you a bit about this.

In RV you need to have a target, that is something to view; And you need also to be able to provide feedback after the session, that is verifiable proof of that the target was viewed. So you are not required to specify things like time and space locations for to RV, but it might well help you to be specific.

If you want to see a place from a bat's perspective, how are you going to verify that?

You can task the viewer to do so, but then when you get the data you are left to guess what happened.

The reason RV data come across as being from a human perspective is most like because it has come through a "filter" of the viewer's consciousness and awareness, that is by nature human.
[-] The following 3 users Like Slorri's post:
  • Roberta, Hurmanetar, Doug
Reply
#7
The significance of the target is decided intentionally or unintentionally by the tasker. He has some kind of idea of what is going to be viewed, and that is the target.
Reply
#8
(09-27-2017, 09:18 PM)Slorri Wrote: The significance of the target is decided intentionally or unintentionally by the tasker. He has some kind of idea of what is going to be viewed, and that is the target.

Can you explain some more about the relationship between RVer and Tasker?
Reply
#9
(09-27-2017, 10:00 PM)Max_B Wrote: Can you explain some more about the relationship between RVer and Tasker?

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.
Reply
#10
(09-27-2017, 10:37 PM)Slorri Wrote: 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.

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...?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)