AOL Visual Observation

Gene_Smith

Administrator
Staff member
This has made me insane over the years, and while I’m able to usually come up with some seemingly plausible theory as to why certain things happen, I am stumped on this one. The fastest way to explain this is to use a made up composite example of the phenomenon that has happened to me a number of times.

I’m doing a session and I get a persistent strong visual of the Sears Tower. I’ve had the Sears Tower as a target in the past and the visual and feeling of it all seems familiar and comfortable. Turns out my target was the Eiffel Tower. Now here is where my question comes in. I have also had the Eiffel Tower as a target before, and I have no more like for the Sears Tower than I do the Eiffel Tower. So if my subconscious or conscious mind, or brain, or the gods of the matrix were going to offer up the Sears Tower as a hint as to what the target was, and it definitely was a hint; then why wasn’t I just given the Eiffel Tower itself. Seems it would have been a lot simpler and easier for everyone involved.

Gene
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
Have you had more experience or memories of the sears tower than for the Eiffel tower?
For example have you seen, touched or actually in some way experienced the Sears Tower more than the Eiffel?
The mind serves up the best match for the data that is coming in from stored experiences and memories - if there are more stored for sears then this will take preference for the match.

all the best...

Daz
 

LD

Member
Staff member
Yeah, Gene. I get that kind of thing too. Maddening.

1) Have you ever seen the Eifel Tower in person?
2) Have you ever seen the Sears Tower in person?

I think a lot of this kind of thing (but certainly not all) comes back to 'experiential bias' (or meaning memory as Ingo called it, I think). If you answered no to both questions above (or 'yes' to #2), I'd be inclined to think it's because you have personal experience with tall pointy structures that are more like the Sears Tower (skyscraper), than you do with tall pointy structures like the Eifel Tower (metal framework French cafe tourist sculpture). Does that make any sense?

Of course if you've been to the Eifel Tower, that blows my theory out of the water lol.

I see this 'experiential bias' issue come up for me again and again in my own viewing at least.

LD
 

LD

Member
Staff member
Oh. Looks like we posted at the same time, Daz.

You know what they say. Great minds and all..... I'm afraid. :-[


Kidding,
LD :)
 

Gene_Smith

Administrator
Staff member
Not especially as far as stored memories. I mean it's like I had gotten strong visual AOLS in the past of the Eiffel Tower when doing other targets, so why when actually viewing the Eiffel Tower would I get the Sears Tower instead of my actual target. It wasn't like I tended to get the Sears Tower as some archetype of a tall building. It's akin to ARV for me in a way, where you have these maddening things happen to you that seem like someone is playing a game with your mind.

Gene
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
Gene,
I believe rv comes from stored internal memories based on life experience. If the Sears tower come up for you more I would bet that its because you have more matching data for ttis inside of you, stored throughout your life than for the Eiffel and the process just uses the best fit from within.

Which Is why i wondered if you've actually seen or touch the sears tower in real life or the eiffel tower for that fact.

preety much the same thoughts as LD :eek:

all the best...

Daz
 

dann

New Member
Here's my 2 cents worth:

The first few times we try RV it isn't too clear what a problem overlays are, but we start to see how it's more reliable to go with subtle sensations than with the obvious clear images. We start to let our inner viewer know that we value the indirect stuff. We reward the inner viewer with good emotions when we have successes. Most of the time we reject the things that look too obvious. So the inner viewer gets to be fairly skilled at the indirect means of representing a target.

I've wondered about this. Or, it could be like LD and Daz suggest.
 

Gene_Smith

Administrator
Staff member
Well in this case, yes I had seen the Sears Tower in person before and never the Eiffel Tower, but honestly I don’t think that’s it, at least not consciously. I don’t think I have any more affinity for one over the other, and I’ve had this phenomenon happen enough in the past to say that it might be I’d get the Sears Tower one day and the Eiffel Tower the next for some other third tall building thingy target, which is sort of the point with my example. Why am I given an AOL of something LIKE the target as opposed to the target itself, especially if the AOL is something I have no special attraction to or affinity with, at least not any more than the target itself.

There’s just so much that happens in R.V. that really should be a clue to understanding how it actually works that ends up just making it all the more curious.

Gene
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
Gene,
that would be it then - its nothing to do with concious reactions or choice. The mind uses real experiences/memories to construct a simulation of the actual target in your mind based on quantum information about the target - the best match you had/which you had experienced was the sears tower, so this was used.

You see when we rv we don't go to the target - we just have access to information about that target - to then communicate this to us, our brain creates a simulation based on what we have experienced in our lives - you had experienced the Sears tower - and this was a close match to the data it needed to communicate so this was used. You have no real experience of the eiffel tower so this wasn't used - even though its the target.

Its all in the mirror neurons - they try to mirror the target and show you what it is using what you have experienced. The more you experience the easier rv becomes.

all the best...

Daz
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
There is still a strong suspicion by some researchers that the physics entropy (not just shannon by measure, but the literal entropy / energy) in a target is a real thing which affects how the target comes through -- and which depending on its state of entropy, may literally change the viewer experience, too.

And, every target is more than a single thing with some exceptions. I have tracked some data and figured out -- I think, this is obviously theoretical and subjective -- that sometimes I get data because the combination of various factors in the target, blended, resulted in the data that I got. I'd think, WTF? Why didn't I just get A PORCH since obviously I'm familiar with that? But what I did get had other meanings. For example, maybe the porch was wooden and went over this area that clearly got all muddy and soggy; so maybe that's why I saw a wooden dock, the long kind you walk down, rather than the wooden porch on a building. Because some of the context and other elements were somehow part of it. It's like there is so much inherent in the target (never mind the viewer!) that can affect things.
 

Binkstir

Member
I really think a lot of it may have to do with speed. I believe the mind struggles to label the information it gets immediately. If someone were to show you some flash cards of pictures and said "just say the 1st thing that pops into your head", you might say "rocks" when you were shown a picture of a cliff. Unlike flash cards however, it's not always easy to turn loose of those ideas once our mind has grabbed onto them. What would you say if someone showed you a picture of the Eiffel tower and said "quick, quick, one word? I bet lots of people would say "building". Try it with someone you know. I'll try it with my wife tomorrow and I'll come back and post her response here ;)

Binkstir
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
Blinkster its not speed but speed is close - its bandwidth.
We want full visual and sound bandwidth pictures but the existing internal mechanism only allows for a 14,400 modem type data - which means everything has to be broken down into smaller and slower chunks of data to then later form a picture.

daz
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
Blinkster its not speed but speed is close - its bandwidth.
Interesting idea Daz and in part I agree with the `bandwidth` analogy...I'm just not quite sure where that leaves those rare moments when one gets a glimpse of the entire target as a whole. Or bilocation...how does the analogy fit here if we are limited to a certain `rate` of data transfer? Are there certain conditions under which the bandwidth suddenly widens to allow a massive influx of information? If so, does this not nullify the concept of a fixed `rate` or setting?

As for Gene's quandry...god knows. Bear in mind the quantillion bits of information processed by your mind (conscious and subconscious) every hour of every day. Seems to me that any number of things fizzing on the rim of consiousness that could be responisble for having the Sears Tower leap up at you rather than the Eiffel.

And what comes first, word or image...? Think about the motion of an S as opposed to and E. The first is so fluid, a sensual motion of the wrist; the latter a more stilted, rigid and time-consuming affair. Might not the mind in its swiftness seek to resolve the anomalous `high tower` image before it through the quickest and most appealing letter available to it at the time? Did Gene verbalise `Sears Tower` before he identified it in his mind or did the name of the building come as a direct response to a specific picture in his mind?

Question questions... ??? ;)

Marv :)
 

dann

New Member
Some random thoughts (psuedo-random ?) :

We set our own bandwidth, subconciously by intention to view a particular part of the whole time-space continuum.

If you tune out a certain type of info translation, the process will flow around through a different channel. The feedback & learning process at work.

There is a pattern recognition process going on. When you see faces in clouds, why those particular faces? Who are all those wierd fairy tale gnomes that I see up there? Or the green-man faces in the trees around my house. I don't think they are anybody I've known in this life-time.

Maybe the Eiffel tower comes up because of psychic weather. If you view the Sears Tower but there is a lot of global psychic activity happening around the Eiffel tower at that moment, there could be a magnetic resonance effect. Lots of viewers in the practice gallery come across inter-viewer resonance from time to time.
 

RedCairo

do you ever dream you're someone else?
Interesting thoughts, you guys. Dan I like your comments on memory (on another thread) and those here; I'll have to mull those a bit.

Re: another angle, I dunno about the bandwidth concept, that's a theory, I've just never been sure I agreed with it; my personal experience doesn't support it.

I've had plenty of full on "immersive" experiences during viewing, like holographic movies I was part of, including psychic awareness either 'from' the perspective of a person or 'of' the entire environ (including that of multiple people). I've had a whole ton of psychic experiences where I simply "was" another person 100% for anywhere from 15 seconds to several minutes (even outside RV; although only a few of these have ever had any feedback, I take them literally). I grant that these are relatively rare as data-form goes when done in RV, but as the saying goes, one white crow proves not all of 'em are black.

The bandwidth of these, to use that term as a bit of slang (since we can't really measure "psychic bandwidth", we can measure SOME degree of conscious processing bandwidth, but not the entire body/nervous system of 'subconscious'), had to be pretty huge, it was instant, and given it was dynamic-interactive, so every micro-instant was a big stream of info, I really don't feel that this was like collecting little components for awhile which eventually got put together in my head for a picture or concept or whatever. This was just way too much more "streaming multi-level info" for that.

I wouldn't say component data is uncommon (it's more common than other forms), but I don't yet believe that humans are actually limited to that (which implies more complex data is merely "a number of components which then combined in the mind). I think there might be some degree of danger in the theory, reminding me of that old saying, "Argue for your limitations and they're yours."

(McMoneagle once wrote that most explanations of "how RV works" ended up being monuments to why it would *not* work instead (since implying the one de-facto implies the other). To me this theory is another item to potentially add to that list.)

I can't say it's wrong though. I mean I don't know that there is 'proof' either way. I also think it's possible that the whole body may absorb psychic info, and that while the conscious linear mind may have its own lesser speed, that this might not mean the incoming is limited, only that the processing it is limited. For example what Bob Monroe called the ROTEs -- "thought balls" -- I've had lots of those, too, some in viewing, much outside it, where a massive quantity of information like a ball of it is just there suddenly, all at once, and you do have to "unfurl the petals" or "roll it out", but it all arrived seemingly at once and for that matter, even in a sort of form (in a mental-mandala sense).

Kinda rambling...
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
Well dont forget our job as viewers is not to name the target
but Describe. If we follow this basic rule it matters not if our mind compares the target based on whats in its internal memory banks or makes substitutions. Eventually the viewer
should be able to physicaly describe or sketch the target
minus any distracting aol labels.

T
 

RedCairo

do you ever dream you're someone else?
Well yeah, I agree Tunde. I think eventually the understanding not just OF the data but ABOUT the data (a sense of what is symbolic, or analogy, vs. literal, for example) is important. Many viewers if they wrote down "literally" what they perceived vs. "what they understood it to mean" would have radically different (and inaccurate) sessions, something I didn't used to understand when I'd been taught the whole thing as totally physical and literal.

I don't think the existence of AOL ever goes away but IMO the need to stop the incoming process so one can do outgoing writing stuff down, can vastly decrease as the viewer gets more experience, more developed memory, and can hold a lot more stuff in the head before writing it down. The vast benefit to this I perceive is that mysteriously, data seems to understand each other when held together, the mind actually helps put those components together -- not in AOL or labeling, but in 'context' -- and often it's a different result. The end result of course is a session that doesn't have notation on viewer process, just data, and sometimes more context or specific data as a result. I'm sure there's a lot more people with the opposite view though, since the aol-labeling and ongoing data recording is considered something done on purpose to 'vent and release' while in process.

Gene, you said your Sears/Eiffel was a made up composite example. I think somehow it got interpreted as a single specific thing though. Do you have other examples of similar things where you have *not* got specific experience with the symbol you got (rather than the literal info you didn't)?
 

RedCairo

do you ever dream you're someone else?
I'm just not quite sure where that leaves those rare moments when one gets a glimpse of the entire target as a whole.
Trivia: when an entire target in general, including "recognition" of a target either from personal experience or from previous-session experience on that target, happens, it's referred to by the science people I know as "perceiving the target holistically." I suppose that's a good term for it. Some people seem to have more of a gift for this (with whole targets, but also just with whole sections or aspects of a target) than others.
 

dann

New Member
I don't care for the bandwidth idea very much either or the analogies that come from communication theory. For instance, the inverse square law of signal strength versus distance has nothing to do with psi. My brief comment on bandwidth was to turn it back around as a matter of intent. If you think you have a 12kb modem, that's what you get.

"Argue for your limitations and they're yours."

In tasking and setting intentions about viewing, however, we do make postive use of limitations. Defining what is in the target and what is not in the target. We kind of refrain from taking in the universe in one gulp in order to make sense of things.

I agree that the body-mind-soul probably takes in the whole thing, and that the limitations are in the processing of it.

On black and white crows, black and white swans, I just bought a book called "The Black Swan" which looks interesting. From the cover blurb: "we are too vulnerable to the impulse to simplify, narrate, and categorize, and not open enough to rewarding those who can imagine the 'impossible'." It's not about psi or rv, but about learning and about being a skeptic, especially of our own authority.
 

RedCairo

do you ever dream you're someone else?
DanN, have you read the Jane Roberts book "The Nature of Personal Reality"? It is really excellent, once you're into it and the left brain quits bitching about the source of it, for making one a lot more "aware" of the limiting mental models, paradigms, belief systems, that we hold, and the way we structure our perception of reality based on that.
 
Top