(2017-09-27, 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.