pjrv : Messages : 2614-2731 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/2614?)
2006/07/01 00:13:35

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#2614
 	From: "pjgaenir" 
Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:27 am
Subject: Investigating the Hypothesis 	pjgaenir
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

OK you guys.

Now of all the people who read the largeruniverse.com essay, let me
ask you: How many people actually, just out of curiosity to SEE how
well "retasking an existing session" worked, and whether it might
have any affect on the session itself, went out and seriously made an
effort to try doing this?

I mean, armchair debate or discussion is one thing, but this is EASY
to actually experiment with.

I have.  Several others have, I hear via PEM.

What are your results?  What are your thoughts about your results?

Do you find that a lot of session data accurately reflects your new
target(s)?

Do you find that any inaccurate data in the first session reflects
your target, and if so do you think it's coincidence?

Do you find that the accurate data in the session (and some are
entirely accurate), is coincidentally put in such a way to match BOTH
sessions?  Do you think it's coincidence?

If enough coincidence conspires together, is it still coincidence?

Are we just reading 'what we want' out of sessions, or might there be
more at work here?

PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#2618
 	From: "smitty97006" 
Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 6:03 pm
Subject: Re: Investigating the Hypothesis 	smitty97006
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hello PJ,

Is there a specific protocol that this is being done wtih or is it a
simple matter of saying ok I'd like to have a session done on XYZ
then randomly pulling out a session done in the past and saying this
is my session on my just designed cue.

Would you consider being a conduit for an overview of the information
you get on this combining both public and private data.

Thank you,
Gene Smith

----------------------------
Moderator's note: Hi Gene.  Well, Pru uses mostly wildcard tasking I'm told,
where you simply take an existing session and assign a target to it. (Obviously,
you're not comparing anything.  More like, sessions are filed here numerically,
taskings are filed there numerically, whichever is next in line for both go
together. Not that I'm ANY expert on whatever she does, this is just what I
heard... I think.)

I sometimes do wildcard sessions as she calls them, I called em precog, where
you do the session on "whatever target is shown me as feedback at ____ time." 
Then I'd generate from my program and/or choose from my bag a target. Makes no
diff in the session accuracy unless you think it does, and goes a long way to
knocking down belief systems related to time.

For some experiments in 'retasking', I would do it just how you described it.

Of course we don't know that on some level, we doing the experiments are not
actually psychically choosing two that go together well!  (May's "Decision
Augmentation Theory".)

Choose existing sessions from yourself, any friend who agrees, or any internet
source that makes 'em public.  I've downloaded about 1.7bazillion pages from
public posting sites to experiment more with when I get more time.

I'll facilitate whatever I can if list members want me to, but I'm not sure what
you're asking me to do. -- PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#2627
 	From: "smitty97006" 
Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: Investigating the Hypothesis 	smitty97006
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

> I'll facilitate whatever I can if list members want me to,
> but I'm not sure what you're asking me to do. -- PJ

Hi PJ,

So as not to bog you down with a lot of stuff.  I am basically asking
that you would simply keep us apprised of what results you are
hearing in regards to this.

My thinking is that if a lot of even anecdotal info comes in
indicating there is a real phenomenon at work here, those interested
could take it upon themselves to do something in a more controlled
way to test emerging theories.

Thank you,
Gene Smith

Reply | Forward
	
#2711
 	From: "Glyn" 
Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 6:43 am
Subject: RE: Re: Investigating the Hypothesis 	gebega
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi PJ,

> You said in answer to Gene's mail..
> 
> I sometimes do wildcard sessions as she calls them, I called em precog,
> where you do the session on "whatever target is shown me as feedback at ____
> time."  Then I'd generate from my program and/or choose from my bag a
> target. Makes no diff in the session accuracy unless you think it does, and
> goes a long way to knocking down belief systems related to time.

   I am interested in what  belief systems about time you are talking about
there, because  personally I would have thought that these 'wildcard
sessions' would go a long way to demonstrating that it definitely does have
something to do with time;  in FM theory accuracy  and 'clean-ness' would be
dependant on at which point the memories of the feedback /target were
accessed by the sub (or whatever is responsible for data-retrieval ).

   It's all belief-systems at the moment I must admit, but interesting
discussion nonetheless :-).

   Kind regards,
    Glyn

-------------------------------
Moderator's note: I think on at least subconscious levels, all of us have a lot
of resistance to the concept that time can be so easily violated. Yes I know
everyone goes, "Oooh!  OK, time doesn't matter!" -- but in my opinion it could
be, but usually isn't, that easy.

It is difficult to describe the feeling of belief systems changing, but it IS a
feeling one gets; the whole of one's concepts about reality actually begin
shifting slightly.  It is sometimes too subtle to describe, but it is quite
tangible to the individual.  It just 'opens one up' a lot more to a whole lot of
stuff that normally, concepts about linearity and time would prohibit.

I am a big fan of future memory only because I'm a big fan of the concept that
time simply doesn't exist beyond our perception.  So in that model, the future
is as present as the present and the past; everything lives in the NOW.  If the
information required to answer a question resides in our perception that is
future, then certainly we'll tune into that. I don't think it's the only source,
I just think the source is equal to everything else.  -- PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#2726
 	From: "Glyn" 
Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 3:57 am
Subject: RE: Re: Investigating the Hypothesis 	gebega
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi PJ,

> You said:
> I am a big fan of future memory only because I'm a big fan of the concept
> that time simply doesn't exist beyond our perception.  So in that model, the
> future is as present as the present and the past; everything lives in the
> NOW.  If the information required to answer a question resides in our
> perception that is future, then certainly we'll tune into that. I don't
> think it's the only source, I just think the source is equal to everything
> else.  -- PJ

   You just hit the nail squarely on the head with those few words PJ. It can
only be called accessing our 'future memory' because in our linear time-view
we can (consciously) experience nothing else, but yes, what appears to be in
our future may not be anything of the kind, esp if we have a holographic
universe as some suggest, or there is no time at all...or maybe even
something along the lines of serial time as Dunne proposed.

   I suspect that the reality will probably be something more than we can
even imagine at the moment. It is so frustrating that we can only take
little peeks through chinks in our linear time 'box' at the moment...but I
guess those little chinks may one day become big holes. Not too big too soon
for us to handle I hope or we won't know whether we're coming, going, or
have been. LOL!

   Grins,
   Glyn

Reply | Forward
	
#2637
 	From: "pjgaenir" 
Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 3:47 pm
Subject: Re: Investigating the Hypothesis 	pjgaenir
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

> How many people actually, just out of curiosity to SEE how
> well "retasking an existing session" worked, and whether it might
> have any affect on the session itself, went out and seriously
> made an effort to try doing this?

Why am I not surprised that only one person responded to this. :-)
Well, and a couple more PEM.

I figure there are a few possibilities.

1.  Nobody is reading the list anyway.

2.  People don't want to take seriously anything presented by
Calabrese, no matter how interesting the questions on their own
merits might be.  That would be a mistake I wouldn't expect anybody
who 'thinks' to make, regardless of their feelings about her.

3.  People are sure they already know the answers so it isn't worth
investigating.

4.  People are lazy and waiting for other people to do it, discuss
it, and inform them from the screen.

---------------------

Here is what I rather expected would be the questions to come up:

Q.  Is it ethical to go get another person's session and "re-task"
it, if the process of doing so might and/or does affect the
viewer/session?

A.  If it does, then probably not.  If it doesn't, then why not.  If
it is some combination between, it's a little iffy.

Q.  Why would PJ suggest we go get sessions off the internet and try
this?

A.  Because when she did this with her own, then with a few others'
with permission, then with a few others without permission, she found
that there seems to be something TO this; that the RV session really
MIGHT be a quantum event affected by the "observation" of people re-
tasking; and felt it was important anybody serious about viewing
figure this out for themselves.

Of course there are other alternative answers I have already brought
up in posts directly addressing Prudence's essay.  Such as that we
find what we want in data, or even on a deeper level find what we
need in any information; such as that much data applies to many
targets (we know this already, but I mean, to a greater extreme than
realized); etc.

But, in exploring this, it is quite a helluva coincidence that the
data the viewer chose to record in a good session (and this appears
to be moreso the better the session/viewer thus far I might add) is
curiously congruent with the data in the re-tasked session, to the
degree where the precise choice of phrasing makes all the difference
and makes it work.

I am not talking about a session with bad data, which when I compare
another re-tasked target to, the session data matches that one
better.  That's silly.

I am not saying that the session has to be entirely accurate about
both targets.  Obviously drastically different targets, esp. when the
major feature of one is say humans and the other doesn't have that,
is going to have data that is NOT going to fit both.

But I am talking about excellent sessions with highly specific shape-
sketches and concepts as data, which curiously overlay in the oddest
way with a re-tasked session.

Out of all the zillion things that viewer could have reported, and
out of all the ways they could have perceived that and chosen to
communicate it, they just happened to choose ways that matched a
surprising amount of data on the retasking.

Might the quality of the observer (including potential DAT involved
in randomly selecting a target to re-task on a session) have as much
effect on this as anything else?  So, could the very nature of the
experimental results be 'biased' by observer quality?  Could be.

I am not paranoid last time I checked. ;-)  I think some other people
in this field might be.  But it's going to be a long damn time before
I publicly share my sessions again after seeing this. That is how
seriously I'm taking it after doing several experiments with this.

So I thought others might wish to experiment and see what they find.
Of course, if nobody else cares, that is all very well too.

But there is something going on with this that does not strike me as
the 30/30 lab finding or the psychological tendency to 'interpret'
all data to fit what you're looking for.  Maybe I'm wrong.

But until I know more about it, I can't recommend people publicly
post sessions unless they just really don't care about this.

PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#2641
 	From: Karl Boyken 
Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 4:26 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Investigating the Hypothesis 	kboyken
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

My thought on this was, who's going to do the judging/analysis?  If I go and
retask someone else's session, then shouldn't a blind third party analyze the
results?

Karl

>>How many people actually, just out of curiosity to SEE how
>>well "retasking an existing session" worked, and whether it might
>>have any affect on the session itself, went out and seriously
>>made an effort to try doing this?

-----------------------------
Moderator's note: You be the judge.  But pick the target blindly, and/or pick
the session blindly.  (In other words, obviously, don't choose a session you've
seen and a target you know or there's likely to be something else up with your
subconscious matching them.)  If you choose the target randomly or blindly from
a pool, then there's no reason you can't be the interpreter in this regard. PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#2662
 	From: "Elizabeth Hambrook" 
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 5:16 am
Subject: Re: Re: Investigating the Hypothesis 	ozblueriver
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

PJ
> So I thought others might wish to experiment and see what they find.
> Of course, if nobody else cares, that is all very well too.>

Hi PJ,

      I'm rivited to any news on this subject. I'm waiting for the weekend to
come around so I can get 5 minutes to do the double tasking. Thanks for posting
your findings so far. I'll let you know what I find a.s.a.p.

Cheers Liz

Reply | Forward
	
#2731
 	From: "Linda & John Garvey" 
Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 4:00 pm
Subject: RE: Re: Investigating the Hypothesis 	linda_g7us
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

PJ and Glyn,

I just want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with what both of you are
saying -- yes!

Linda G

"The distinction between past, present and future
is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one."
-- Albert Einstein --

Reply | Forward
	
#2651
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 2:24 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Investigating the Hypothesis 	docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi PJ.

(Big Grin)..now wern't you making fun of Pru for
making everyone paranoid. But I SALUTE you for testing
it out. Good job to those that did and to PRU for
getting us to pay attention. Now I think this could
really improve the quality of sessions.

Best Regards,

bill

-----------------------
Moderator's note: More like I was teasing, but she's hardly alone if she is. 
However, you're assuming that because I've taken the time to investigate her
comments on retasking, that I agree with her conclusion on why we come up with
the results we do.  I don't know the answer to that yet.  I don't necessarily
agree that this is a quantum/RI effect on the session, retrocausally.  That is
one option.  It is an interesting one.

Research shows 30% of data for any session can be found in 30% of any targets
generated.  And, that's an average so we assume some are higher/lower.  And I've
done a lot of posting describing many other quite logical possibilities that
could be the real answer to why this retasking seems to work well.

Maybe compared to Joe we all just suck so bad as viewers that our sessions match
damn near anything equally.  LOL.  No but really, some of the sessions I've done
this on were really good sessions, so I don't think that's the case.

Pru's concept that an RV session as a quantum event is influenced by anything
tied into it, such as the observation of others and deliberate retasking, is an
interesting idea. Yes, yes, now everyone on the net is swearing it's old news,
THEY thought of it LONG before she did, gee whiz, and they were just talking to
their grandmother about this last week don'tcha know! LOL!  Yeah right.

Eeeeeeeverybody's an expert in RVland.  Well anyway, regardless of what the
answer might be, I still feel that the answer, and the process of thinking about
this, is a healthy exercise for serious viewers, and that's why I've been
pushing it on the list.  Even if the answer is that we're deluded, it is still a
valuable lesson, after all! :-)     PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#2649
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: Investigating the Hypothesis and ARV 	docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi PJ,

I didn't need to do it again.  I've done it myself in
the past...muliple times! Just like I've posted
before. Even as an analyst. or a JUDGE. if you want to
see something in the session..it tends to come out. I
was analyzing for Eva.. doing ARV..I hoped her
multiple sessions would all come out for the same of
the two targets .and they did in astounding
multiplicity!  I then did the same thing for Pame
doing ARV at the time. Then I did myself.. then I
stopped analyzing anyones ARV..because the mulitple
sessions ( 2-5)  almost always matched up but were
usually WRONG. Somehow my desire to see matches had
overridden the original tasking of getting the CORRECT
picture.. OK now are we  in agreement about this..LOL.
?? I thank Pru for making this breakthru in
understanding RV and ARV.

Best Regards,

Bill

------------------------
Moderator's note: I haven't really accepted her conclusion yet. I don't have
enough evidence for that so far.  I have accepted her initial findings, however.
The reason for those findings, I am not yet sure about. -- PJ