Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
sense of vision
#1
In the 1981 Peter Ramster documentary located in this subsection, a female subject was regressed back to a previous life in Germany. There are lots of evidential pieces to the story, but the one I wanted to focus on here has to do with whether she needs to use her glasses to see.

As background- my research has lead me to the conclusion that matter is quite likely the result of our non-physically based experiences, and not an objectively real thing. This has been touched on before in our discussions and I would assume we will “go there” again in this new iteration of the forum, but that’s not the central topic here.

Back to the matter at hand,,,

During the regression, the subject, who normally wears corrective glasses to see and read, and who was not her wearing glasses during her hypnosis, was asked to stay in her hypnotic state but to open her eyes and point out on a map, a particular point of interest in Düsseldorf, her home during her previous life.

At 54:07 in the video she opened her eyes, studied the map, and pointed to the location. She did this without any apparent difficulty despite not using her glasses. No mention was made of this detail in the video. At the time I thought,,, OK she must use her glasses to see distant objects,, no big deal.

At the end of the regression session, the team was discussing with her some detail about her previous life and she was again presented the map so that she could respond to a question, and she looked at it and then paused and asked for her glasses so she could see the map.

I think we can all agree that it has been long established that seeing is not a purely physical process. Even materialists would agree that there is MUCH more going on in vision than just focusing photons, sensing them and "displaying" the image. A ton of apparently mental gymnastics is needed in order prepare, assess, modify and interpret the image, real-time. But I would like to particularly look at the front-end process of simply grabbing the image. To most people, certainly a devout materialist, no interpretation of any kind can occur unless an image is physically seen with enough clarity to assess and interpret. 

Of course one possibility is that she really doesn’t need glasses in the first place but wears them out of habit. 

Or that this was all a ruse for the documentary 

I’m assuming neither of these is behind the mystery.

So that leaves us with the possibility that her vision is actually different in her two different hypnotic states. To me, the implications of this is significant. 

I mean, can someone’s “mental” state change the physical alignment of the eye’s various components, and change its ability to focus? And how would that work?

Alternatively: do we perhaps process the visual data in some way, perhaps non-physically and/or mentally, and make’s the process of physical focus irrelevant?

Our do we occasionally (or perhaps always?) use an alternative sense of vision that doesn’t rely on the physical aspects of our body at all?

Of course we have all heard stories where the blind can see, 360 deg vision, etc etc, in the context of NDEs and other paranormal states. But we are talking about "real life" here. 

I would like to hear what others have to say about this.
[-] The following 3 users Like jkmac's post:
  • Ninshub, Laird, Typoz
Reply
#2
Patients with multiple personality disorder have been noted to experience visual changes that correlate to their condition. This may be similar, since suggestion during hypnosis has been used to trigger things like temporary remission of allergies and other systemic changes.

That is not a silver bullet or anything close, of course, it wouldn't work if the patient has cataracts or some form of damage... Then there is also the fact that pupils actually become dilated during hypnosis, which is usually a visual hindrance.
[-] The following 3 users Like E. Flowers's post:
  • Laird, Ninshub, Oleo
Reply
#3
A real life example of seeing without using the eyes is in the work of Mark Komissarov and Michaela Istrati.

https://www.facebook.com/MarkKomissarov/?pnref=lhc
[-] The following 1 user Likes Slorri's post:
  • Ninshub
Reply
#4
His main video looks an awful lot like Luke's Jedi lightsaber/force training... Obi-wan would be proud. "With the blast shield down": https://youtube.com/watch?v=owvpRNzoaVU

Have you tried this? Seems like a fun thing to do, if it works.
Reply
#5
(08-18-2017, 10:33 PM)E. Flowers Wrote: ...

Have you tried this? Seems like a fun thing to do, if it works.

I have not done Infovision, but as a remote viewer I do not doubt that it is for real. Their training appears to be similar to Obi-wan's. A type of positive convincing.


In RV we certainly do not see with any part of the physical body. The Infovision viewers might get at least parts of their information through the skin. I've seen them shining a light on the target to aid the viewer, and that might indicate that they are actually seeing it where it is; While at the same time they can do it at a distance, same as RV.
[-] The following 2 users Like Slorri's post:
  • Ninshub, E. Flowers
Reply
#6
(08-18-2017, 10:18 AM)jkmac Wrote: So that leaves us with the possibility that her vision is actually different in her two different hypnotic states. To me, the implications of this is significant. 

I mean, can someone’s “mental” state change the physical alignment of the eye’s various components, and change its ability to focus? And how would that work?

Alternatively: do we perhaps process the visual data in some way, perhaps non-physically and/or mentally, and make’s the process of physical focus irrelevant?

Our do we occasionally (or perhaps always?) use an alternative sense of vision that doesn’t rely on the physical aspects of our body at all?

Of course we have all heard stories where the blind can see, 360 deg vision, etc etc, in the context of NDEs and other paranormal states. But we are talking about "real life" here. 

I would like to hear what others have to say about this.

Briefly looked at some literature, and it looks like there could be something worthy of consideration going on. Impossible to say whether it applies to the case you have raised. But some researchers have observed in specific experiments that people sometimes exhibit improved vision when hypnotized, or when using suggestion, particularly if they are short sighted. But results seems mixed, some suggest they have found an effect, whilst many others say they found nothing. Most seem to rule out any physical refractive changes in the eye to explain their observations of improved vision, instead there seem to be a suggestion that attention and concentration might be playing a part... i.e. something about processing in the brain, rather than eye changes. For instance, some subjects have worse vision when say... music is playing... which does suggest something like interference theory may be involved.

I'm very favorably disposed towards interference type theories, so when there is less interference (during hypnotism) peoples visual acuity might sometimes improve by improved processing due to less interference. But all that said, nobody is really getting at the deeper mechanisms behind peoples experiences. How we explain it at that deeper level is still all up for grabs. I'm certainly open minded about the possibility of third party effect on subjects who have let go of control (belief), allowing reinforcement (amplification) to improve the subjects processing. In that sense, what you're describing could be just another perspective on UBC's Ouija board study, or my ideas about the OBE NDE.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Max_B's post:
  • Ninshub
Reply
#7
(08-19-2017, 09:15 AM)Slorri Wrote: I have not done Infovision, but as a remote viewer I do not doubt that it is for real. Their training appears to be similar to Obi-wan's. A type of positive convincing.


In RV we certainly do not see with any part of the physical body. The Infovision viewers might get at least parts of their information through the skin. I've seen them shining a light on the target to aid the viewer, and that might indicate that they are actually seeing it where it is; While at the same time they can do it at a distance, same as RV.

Which would explain why children seem to perform well in it. I think that my
subconscious skeptic could hinder my progress in something like this.
[-] The following 1 user Likes E. Flowers's post:
  • Oleo
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)