Future Memory and RV

Glyn

New Member
For Jen and others who may be interested.....


'The Paranormal Explained' By Sean O'Donnell

Dr O'Donnell is also the author of 'Future Memory and Time'. Have a look at the book Preview on the link below... and see especially Chapter 2 for mention of Remote Viewing, including Ingo Swann, Joe McMoneagle and others, and there is also information about J W Dunne, who in 1927 wrote the book 'An Experiment With Time' and first postulated the idea that we could perhaps...remember the future (see below my signature for a quote from Dunne).

No matter what you may think of Future Memory Theory (O'Donnell calls it Pre-call or Anti-Memory), tis definitely worth reading.

From the Forward:
Dr. Sean O'Donnell is possibly the only 'hard' scientist ever, to have developed deep intuition competence quite deliberately. This unique symbiosis then readily affords a radical new viewpoint which can make large regions of paranormal experience quite easy to understand. The new 'anti-memory' or 'pre-call' viewpoint can readily demystify much of the previously mysterious experience of intuition - while bringing the paranormal into congruence with normal science as never before. Specifically it permits a first ever psychological exploration of Einstein's Theory of Relativity - which broadly holds that "Time does not pass, though people do!"This book is written in a very simple style to be accessible to all. So that if you've ever experienced intuition and wondered what it might signify, you'll find a startling new answer here.


http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MUTGpZbetp0C&dq=sean+o'donnell+the+paranormal+explained+review&source=gbs_navlinks_s


Glyn
 

Glyn

New Member
For those who are interested in future memory theories then this is a fairly modern take and a definite must read. It is quite a long article, but well worth it.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_21_3_taylor.pdf

Regards,
Glyn
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
can it be future memory if you as a viewer nail the target - but you never know because you don't get feedback?

daz
 

Mycroft

Active Member
Glyn said:
For those who are interested in future memory theories then this is a fairly modern take and a definite must read. It is quite a long article, but well worth it.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_21_3_taylor.pdf

Regards,
Glyn
Thanks Glyn, tonight I was just giving someone a dissertation (short form) on sending positive intent to themselves in the past to change their current course of events.

I am quite certain this is an area that should be studied more thoroughly by adepts. Time is so mutable it is almost laughable once you've been able to step outside our self conception of it.

Always and interesting subject!

Mycroft
 

Benton

Active Member
Staff member
Thanks Glyn for posting that journal article. Fascinating read, it really goes along with the idea that what you are remote viewing is not the target photo, but the joyful experience of describing the target photo in the future. That addresses Daz's good question,
can it be future memory if you as a viewer nail the target - but you never know because you don't get feedback?
 

Glyn

New Member
Daz said:
can it be future memory if you as a viewer nail the target - but you never know because you don't get feedback?

Hi Daz,

Funnily enough, a similar thing (nailing the target without f/b) happened to me last week when doing one of Marty's 1ARV targets. My session was judged to be very high on the Targ scale..higher than my usual average scores. However, when the event took place I was on the losing end of a binary outcome and so I did not receive feedback. I strongly believe that being told I had scored very highly constituted unintentional feedback, and rendered my session useless for the 1ARV exercise. Not quite the same thing as never receiving any kind of feedback, but interesting anyway.

We have had discussions over the years, and you are probably thinking of Pat Price and that it is reported that he was dead before something he had viewed was proven to be correct. Just to say that I am well aware that theories involving time are full of apparent paradox, and we just don't know what is going on..none of us. FM theory could be partly right, or not at all, but whatever, I am certainly not going to dismiss it out of hand based on information that cannot be tested. I could ask you to do 6 sessions for me and I would never give you feedback. Even if you said yes, it would be no use to anyone but myself, because I could never tell anyone just in case the merest hint of success/failure got back to you, and I certainly couldn't publish. As for shooting you to test the after death thing....well no I don't think so. ;D ;) Joke Daz, joke! LOL!

Seriously though, that article is really interesting and worth a read in full. It was published in 2007 and I can't believe I missed it. The author even address paradoxical tasking, where an event seems to occur *because* a session was done. It's all grist for the mill.

Just saw your post while writing this Benton. Yes, it is not just the intended feedback picture, but the whole ballgame. That is why novelty and high interest may be so important to performance. Not high interest in the present at session time......but in the future, at f/b time and beyond, where those memories lie.


Cheers,
Glyn
 

Glyn

New Member
Mycroft said:
Thanks Glyn, tonight I was just giving someone a dissertation (short form) on sending positive intent to themselves in the past to change their current course of events.

Hi Mycroft,

I know that some people do try and make their time of feedback more 'memorable' so that back in the past at session time the future memories they are trying to access are reinforced and perhaps clearer. I have not had a lot of success doing that deliberately, but I haven't tried that often. It has happened to me a lot accidentally, but unfortunately sometimes it's really messed me up. For example if around feedback time something really exciting happens, then I have often seen bits of it in my session and that's not good for accuracy. However, I once had a really good example of accidental feedback reinforcement. I was reading a magazine with a picture of Ayres Rock, and when I got feedback shortly afterwards (f/b time is not a good time for me to read mags or watch telly), it turned out to be Ayres Rock. That had impact, and my session was good.

It's almost as if trying to manufacture high interest deliberately (or looking at it your way...sending that message/intent back to yourself in the past), does not work as well as it does if it is an accident. Goodness knows why. Maybe the conscious mind blocks it.


When I read your words I was thinking that it is not possible to change the past by sending back intent from the future, but when I thought of it from another angle, that is just what you are doing....you are causing yourself to have picked up the information in your session, and you have changed your future. It's just a different way of looking at precognition.

Cheers,
Glyn
 

Loraine

New Member
"Funnily enough, a similar thing (nailing the target without f/b) happened to me last week when doing one of Marty's 1ARV targets. My session was judged to be very high on the Targ scale..higher than my usual average scores. However, when the event took place I was on the losing end of a binary outcome and so I did not receive feedback. I strongly believe that being told I had scored very highly constituted unintentional feedback, and rendered my session useless for the 1ARV exercise. Not quite the same thing as never receiving any kind of feedback, but interesting anyway."


Last week I had exactly the same experience as Glyn of 'nailing the target without f/b' doing that same 1ARV target. I believe that the scores are only indirect secondary abstract opinion about the session, rather than direct primary actual information about the target itself, so therefore scores do not constitute f/b.

IMO Targ scale scores are not indicative of the certainty of the prediction, but more a reflection of the 'viewability' of the photosite. I wager all my predictions regardless of ratings because marginal sessions are no less likely to succeed. It seems to me that immediately understandable iconic images (along with other unsuitable types of photos) are not only problematic but also the most significant limiting factor in all forms of ARV. Classic and famous photos, especially any which have already been viewed over and over (eg. training targets which are well 'entrained' within the RV tribe group mind), are extra attractive to the mind's eye, and so over ride the more subtle associations to the event outcomes created by the tasker. I think this issue comes into play big style in the 1ARV (specified target/non-specified target binary) set up, because it is reinforced by the viewers natural curiosity driven bias towards viewing the target with f/b potential. These two factors are I suspect why results are marginal even though 1ARV seems more like cvr ie only one set target.
 

njbr

New Member
Benton said:
Thanks Glyn for posting that journal article. Fascinating read, it really goes along with the idea that what you are remote viewing is not the target photo, but the joyful experience of describing the target photo in the future. That addresses Daz's good question,
can it be future memory if you as a viewer nail the target - but you never know because you don't get feedback?


If this was the case, couldn't you validate by doing a session, and then telling yourself that you'll study/memorize the feedback photo more than anything you've ever studied/memorized before, hence theoretically giving you a superbly on target session ?
 

njbr

New Member
LOL, i spoke too soon, there is without a doubt some kind of correlation between feedback analysis by the viewer and data accuracy. I jumped in the dojo and just did a session... my focus for the last little while is try and pick up more precise, minute details about the target, ie not just high level stuff. For this session i told myself I would analyze the feedback photo in as much details as possible, and spend at least 5 minutes observing the photo.

Here is my session - http://www.dojopsi.com/tkr/rv/galleries/peanutview.cfm?dsid=300028

Not all on target, but some very good detail, ie the chains, window/hole, colors and overall impressions...

I'm going to go back and read this entire thread and spend some time looking into feedback analysis... hopefully I'm not just repeating the obvious :p
 

Loraine

New Member
njbr said:
Benton said:
Thanks Glyn for posting that journal article. Fascinating read, it really goes along with the idea that what you are remote viewing is not the target photo, but the joyful experience of describing the target photo in the future. That addresses Daz's good question,
can it be future memory if you as a viewer nail the target - but you never know because you don't get feedback?


If this was the case, couldn't you validate by doing a session, and then telling yourself that you'll study/memorize the feedback photo more than anything you've ever studied/memorized before, hence theoretically giving you a superbly on target session ?

This is what PRECOG10 viewers call Enhanced FeedBack. When you get your f/b you look at it as if you were viewing, ascertaining all the separate generic characteristics you would hope to identify in a perfect session and sketching the key distinguishing visual features. Printing out the photosite and drawing in the outlines of the most significant photo subject matter and highlighting or labelling any important less perceivable parts (like gases, lines between wet and dry etc) is a good way to make sure you do genuinely engage with EFB(and therefore learn lessons) rather than go through the motions whilst allowing your thoughts to wander away. It's not mechanistically essential to process but it's likely to improve focus, so worth doing every now and again to hone performance.
 

Mycroft

Active Member
Recently I've been plagued with this thought and had to look up this thread again. I'm having the same memories I had two and a half years ago when gas went from $2.25 to $2.85. I said to my wife thank goodness they aren't $4.50 like they used to be, she thought I'd hit my head as gas prices had never been that high.

Starting a couple of weeks ago, I'll pass a gas station and think how glad they aren't $4.50 anymore, anymore?

The same memories are coming to me I had back then, just bizarre.

My grandfather used to have dreams about food prices in the stores (he was a farmer) he'd just sit in tears knowing what the future held. He told me, before I grew up a box of shells would cost a dollar!

Seems I suffer from the same type of thing. I don't know what happens when gas hits $4.50, I think it tops out around $4.52 but up to $5.09 and something very bad happens. That I don't know.

For now be glad it isn't $4.50 because if (future) memory serves me correct, those are hard times indeed.

Mycroft
 
Top