If RVing numbers is so tough, why do we use them for tasking ID???

tbone

Member
Fascinating. I wonder if a synesthete who sees numbers as colours or experiences them as taste would be even more accurate.
 

Benton

New Member
Staff member
I suspect they would... and so would you.

Try this experiment and get back to me with your results.

Associate the 10 numbers with a smell or taste. The simpler senses would probably do better on this association stuff since they are limited. They say odors are the #1 sensory event that brings back memories, so maybe they are the best candidate for accessing "future memories".

Keep us posted on your results, and good luck.
 

Don

New Member
I think you guys have hit on something that could be very important - for RVers, anyway.

Regardless of the reason why, numbers are indeed incredibly difficult to be accurate about, at least in my experience and according to all the experts. This is why the ARV method exists, as a way to connect numbers to something that can be perceived in a sensory-based way. Numbers, the instant you think of them, create a forced-choice scenario. Numbers are always an either-or proposition. And I have to agree with just about everything Daz has said on this topic.

Anyway, if you could train yourself to instantly associate a different sensory experience (such as smell) with each of a 0-9 number, as someone described earlier, you would basically have an instant ARV method that you could take with you into a every session you do. Of course, I suppose the question then might become "Is this scent a result of something at the target or does it indeed represent a number?" And if the number is three or more digits, that's a lot of scents to have to sort out and recognize as meaning numbers. Very interesting idea. But, as a viewer, I think it's beyond me. I don't have that kind of control, at least not reliably.
 

Benton

New Member
Staff member
Good points Don.

I was keen on using smells as the hook since there are few of them, so you'd RV one digit at a time. I would love to see if it works.

I would think that the "up close" senses would be more wired in for RV because in nature, by the time you smell or taste or feel the thing you need to know about, its happening right then and there, and I need to know immediately before I eat the wrong thing, or step around the tree where the bear is on the other side. Feedback is immediate.
 

Don

New Member
Benton,
I agree. They say the sense of smell is the most basic of all the senses. If I remember correctly, I think it impacts the most primitive part of the brain, more so than the other senses.

Also, according to Joe M. and others - and my own experience - the sense of sight, in remote viewing, is the least dependable. Images are often, maybe even usually, wrong. But the other senses seem to be more accurate. As you say, senses such as smell and touch are more immediate, maybe even more important to personal survival. So tying scents to numners makes sense, in my opinion.

This whole concept is something that never occurred to me before. I think if someone could actually entrain themselves to do it, it could be incredibly useful.
 

Abstract_1dea

New Member
DAZ wrote:
The problem with trying to rv numbers is that they don't exist. They have no form or are intangible.
I beg to differ. A number is as real as you are. It has an essence just like a pie or a locomotive.

I remember having a discussion about this very thing a few years ago and was told that I was an Abstract person for thinking about it that way. I am glad to see I am not alone.

What I said then was to take the example of 8. It is 2X2X2 or 11111111 or 4+4 but the essence is still the same no matter how it is expressed.

I do not have synesthesia but I can tell that something like 8 exists.

If you don't believe something can exist, how can you RV it?

If it is a thing, then you should be able to RV it.

If you don't believe it can even be a thing, then do you think it can even be a target?

"How much of RV is psychological?" -Interviewer
"All of it" - Joe McMoneage
"All of it!?" -Interviewer
"All of it." -Joe McMoneage

I have several martinis waiting.
 

Glenda

Member
Numbers, coordinates, all those things I guess helps us understand and make it a little less weird. RV is basically different. I doubt that we need those things. But it is scientific and someone might be documenting and making it official, without some goof cheating, official. I just want truth. That is all. If it is not possible, fine. I think it is and has been for a long time. Not sure how long. Decades at least. It does take patience. It does take being convinced to be good. It can freak you out, at least it has me several times. It does exist. I find that very odd, just as a regular person.
 

katzenhai2

Ambassador
The number 8 is the number of xxx objects.
And because there is no xxx specified you can't RV it. That's it.
There is no target (except a line on paper - then that is the target, but probably difficult to view a line on paper).
 

Abstract_1dea

New Member
Something that has impressed me from the first RV information I picked up has been how much limitations are beliefs actually affect performance.

For instance, when Ingo did the RV session on the device underground, (I forgot what exactly it was) he effected the needle. Nobody told him it had never been done before so had no beliefs about whether or not it could be done.

This has been my experience as well. It's all psychology. It was common belief that man could not run the 4 minute mile but after it was done, it became common.

It's all about keeping a beginner's mind.


"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities. In the expert's mind there are few."
Shunryu Suzuki

If we have never heard that it cannot be done, then we may try anything.

I think it will surprise us what limits we have allowed for ourselves.
 

PatMcDonald

New Member
Don said:
Benton,
I agree. They say the sense of smell is the most basic of all the senses. If I remember correctly, I think it impacts the most primitive part of the brain, more so than the other senses.
Hmm... strikes me as being an unscientifically verified observation. Some people are trained in smell differentiation (scent and cosmetic boffins) but they generally have very good aptitude in the skill and the qualification before they are formally trained. Outdoor types generally have better smell skills than urban dwellers.

Reason I smell a rat on the point is that "the most primitive part of the brain" doesn't actually mean much. Brain differentiation in shape between humans and their close cousins isn't that apparent.

Don said:
Also, according to Joe M. and others - and my own experience - the sense of sight, in remote viewing, is the least dependable. Images are often, maybe even usually, wrong. But the other senses seem to be more accurate. As you say, senses such as smell and touch are more immediate, maybe even more important to personal survival. So tying scents to numbers makes sense, in my opinion.
Visual impressions are usually masked or incomplete. I wouldn't say they were usually "wrong" - very often there is a subtle relationship between a visual impresion and target feedback. Hypothetical reason why - if RV is simply matching neural maps that have already been experienced to RV signal line data, then it's very very unlikely that a viewer would have experienced the same neural map from the target. Even a subtle change like lighting conditions would have an impact on the nerual map. As for smelling numbers... well, if you can differentiate 10 different smells, go for it. Test reality and find out if you are right.

Don said:
... it could be incredibly useful.
No kidding. ;D
 

Benton

New Member
Staff member
if RV is simply matching neural maps that have already been experienced to RV signal line data, then it's very very unlikely that a viewer would have experienced the same neural map from the target.
I just read an article from a few years ago that discussed a study of memory. It turns out that when you ask folks to recall all the details of a memory, a bunch of them are just wrong. The reason for this is because your brain does not store neural data on EVERYTHING you encounter, so when you are remembering, you may have the original trigger to the memory ("Hey, remember when the parakeet got out of its cage?") but the brain fills in the blanks to fill out the picture, of course with congruous but not necessarily accurate data.

I agree Don that you are right on track here, the RV data is often some neural piece associated with the target but not necessarily exactly the target. Though it could be, if enough connections are made. They certainly may help, though they have drawbacks, too. You see this in your experiences in RV all the time. The Hella Hammid story of the nuclear turbine/copper kettle is an example. Visuals, because we are so dependent on them, have gobs of associations and therefore are most capable of leading us astray.

I also read another research paper that showed that when looking in on brains with fMRI devices, the same pattern of activity occurs when a person is remembering and when they are imagining their future. In both cases, the scenery and experiential data has to be pulled off the shelf for use, since memories and fantasies of the future both are taking place in a virtual world, made up of the neural info we have written on our brain-matter (maybe).
 

Don

New Member
Pat,
You may be correct, the idea that scents impact the most primitive part of the brain could very well be an "unscientifically verified observation" (I believe that was how you put it). I simply mentioned it because I recalled reading that somewhere some time ago. By "most primitive part of the brain", I believe they were referring to the complexes of the brain nearest the brain stem (or maybe part of the brain stem) - which is what they called the "most primitive part".

I was just mentioning something I'd read somewhere, not stating it as fact. I really don't know if it's true or not.
 

psijunkie

New Member
It is first important to understand the physiology of olfaction. The primary olfactory cortex, in which higher-level processing of olfactory information takes place, forms a direct link with the amygdala and the hippocampus. Only two synapses separate the olfactory nerve from the amygdala, which is involved in experiencing emotion and also in emotional memory (Herz & Engen, 1996). In addition, only three synapses separate the olfactory nerve from the hippocampus, which is implicated in memory, especially working memory and short-term memory. Olfaction is the sensory modality that is physically closest to the limbic system, of which the hippocampus and amygdala are a part, and which is responsible for emotions and memory. Indeed this may be why odor-evoked memories are unusually emotionally potent (1996).
http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/ubnrp/smell/memory.html

A bit of googling pulled this up.

I believe Don is essentially correct. It seems the other sensory nerves don't have a similar connection to the limbic system. The limbic system and the olfactory cortex predate the neocortex. I too wonder if this could be significant.
 

Benton

New Member
Staff member
Perhaps numbers are difficult to RV because we use them for target cuing. Maybe they are already overwhelmed in our associations with countless tasks to be culled out of individual tasks.
 

Abstract_1dea

New Member
Then rv the numbers and don't talk. After you've tried come back and tell us. Wink
OUCH! I will. (but my point is not just related to RV'ing numbers)

I'm just saying that it may depend on how we see things.

Most people see a quantity as a description of a thing and not a thing itself.

A senestiate would see the number as a thing itself that could be described and therefore be viewable.

It is difficult as well to see a contract itself but not do hard to see what the contract is about.

The viewing is about nouns mostly, verbs secondarily. A number is seen by most people as an adjective or adverb that describes something else.

If we could see a number as a noun or an object, then it would be viewable and describable.

However, a number does have unique qualities that an object has but you have to look at it differently.

Take the lower numbers for example:

0 - emptiness, barren, hollow,
1 - solitary, single, complete, a single dimension,
2 - dual, yin/yang, opposing, a pair, two halves, a line
3 - defines a plane, stable, triangle, like a paper folded in half
4 - a square, quad, stable like wheels,

I have trouble seeing more higher than that without assigning another example like 5 being a hand or cards in a poker game.
The difference is 5 is being relating to something else but 0-4 can be easily understood.
For lottery, all you need is 0-9. Define the essence, you can describe the thing and RV it.

Is it that it really is a descriptor of a thing or is it, as I have stated, a thing in itself that can be described just we don't have an accurate description of it because it's not generally understood that way?



Perhaps it's not an issue of accepting that it is difficult, it just may be a retraining of how we see things.

Looking at Senestia as a wiring defect is to do them and yourself a disservice.
Perhaps looking at it like it is a clue of something else or a design feature not activated at the factory.
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
Perhaps numbers are difficult to RV because we use them for target cuing. Maybe they are already overwhelmed in our associations with countless tasks to be culled out of individual tasks.
No - you all need to stop making this more complicated that it actually is. As I said beofre I an and do rv without any cue - the cuew has been proved and shwon to not affect rv in any way - its a ritual process we as humans cling to and is also good for admin purposes.

Anything intangible (that has no form) is automatically harder to remote view - because the remote viewing process and its nature of not naming is purely descriptive. Add to this that we describe by using our tangible sense, and intangibles are just plain harder.

As I said earlier - its hard using touch, smell, taste, sound to describe number 5.
If you don't believe me try it for yourself.
Its also the same with other intangibles like; Love, hate, or even more obscure intangible like 'social responsibility' (I was once tasked this as the target of a group of people for advanced training) think about it try to describe the 'social responsibility' of a group of people using descriptive data, funnelled through the human senses - it becomes very hard. Most or remoet viewing training for the majority is based on tangible feedbackable targets like mountains, structures, events, locations and people.

Note I say 'hard' not impossible. Numbers have no form, they are gestalt symbols for collections of things - their intangibility is the only thing that makes them harder to view, as per most intangible things. There is no mystery here - no need to complicate things, IMO.

All the best...

Daz
 

katzenhai2

Ambassador
Abstract_1dea said:
0 - emptiness, barren, hollow,
1 - solitary, single, complete, a single dimension,
2 - dual, yin/yang, opposing, a pair, two halves, a line
3 - defines a plane, stable, triangle, like a paper folded in half
4 - a square, quad, stable like wheels,
These are abstract associations - not the number itselfs. Sounds more like ARV what you want to do.
 

Abstract_1dea

New Member
These are abstract associations - not the number itself. Sounds more like ARV what you want to do.
That's not exactly what I mean.

I saw the show that had Daniel (the numbers guy) and he was describing what the numbers look like to him and what he feels the attributes he has for them. He said prime numbers have a solid feeling to them.

The first five prime numbers (six if you count zero) are in the first 10 numbers. I think they are special numbers and do have a different texture.

The descriptions I gave for the the numbers are a vague description of how I see them. Although I am not a senestiate, They do seem to have properties of their own. What I am doing to attempting to describe these properties as I see perceive them.

Daniel formed models of clay in three dimensions based on how he sees the numbers going much further than the first 10 and they were consistent. If we could perceive numbers as real as this, it would just take a bit of training to recognize the numbers in a RV sessions and predicting these numbers would be easier and more consistent.

In ARV, you assign a target that is unrelated to the number to predict what will happen. It is always different and has nothing whatsoever to do with the number itself. That is not even abstract, it is associative as you are assigning a purpose for each session beyond the target itself. ARV takes for granted that you are not even trying to see the number itself, you are associating something else to it and searching for that target among the possible targets.

What I am proposing to do is to recognize the number as a thing with definite, consistent attributes that you can pick out of a range of targets in order to determine the number directly. That to me is why five is harder than one or two as one and two are more known to me than five is and I would have to work on determining the aspects of five that are important instead of assigning them traits that may or may not apply.

In order to RV a thing, I have to have a frame of reference to work with in order to recognize it when described.

I am thinking some practice to see what my sub thinks is important about the numbers and document it so that when I see them again, I'll understand. Kinda like what RV does in the first place. Setting up a language and a dialog with the subconscious in order to understand what is perceives and interpret those perceptions in a useful way.

Does that make any sense to you?

If numbers are perceived only as an attribute of something else, then this whole path will be ignored and never pursued.

No assumptions, not even this one, need go unchallenged.
 

Don

New Member
Daz,
Great post. I pretty much agree with your whole take on this subject - with just a few exceptions and/or caveats.

Daz wrote:
"As I said earlier - its hard using touch, smell, taste, sound to describe number 5.
If you don't believe me try it for yourself.
Its also the same with other intangibles like; Love, hate, or even more obscure intangible like 'social responsibility' (I was once tasked this as the target of a group of people for advanced training) think about it try to describe the 'social responsibility' of a group of people using descriptive data, funnelled through the human senses - it becomes very hard."

Some of the intangibles you mentioned are emotions and/or have emotions commonly associated with them. It could be said that even the "more obscure" intangibles (such as the "social responsibilty" example you used) also tend to carry at least some sort of minimal emotional meaning (albeit most likely a slightly different emotional meaning for every individual). But numbers don't even have that. Apart from a vague and possibly synthetically-imposed emotional connotation, I can't see numbers even remotely associated with emotion. And THAT factor would tend to make them even more difficult to psychically perceive than other intangibles (such as the ones you mentioned) that DO carry emotional weight.

I agree, Daz, that we are probably making this more complex, more difficult, than it really is. One thing for certain: for this conversation to be conceptually comprehensible, we must first clearly distinguish between the subject of the numbers/letters we use to cue targets and the subject of attempting to pychically perceive numbers. Respectfully, Benton, I believe these are two different subjects, one having almost nothing to do with the other.

I also agree with you, Daz, that the numbers we use as target cues - target designators, really - are essentially meaningless. The only meaning they posess is as a "focus of intent", like a street address, a way of separating the target from the rest of reality. And, of course, they are useful for administrative purposes, as you mentioned, for filing, for referring to, etc. (referring to a target number seems better, more specific and more neutral, than saying something like, "...that target with the blue house, the creek, and the big tree in front...").

You say you don't even use numbers for target cues anymore, you just use the word "target" or something similar. Many years ago, after I'd been RVing for approximately a year, I started with the number 100 and then, for every session after that, simply assigned the next sequential number (101, 102, 103, etc.). Just about all my targets were tasked by my wife. She kept track of what number we were currently on and, when she pulled the sealed envelope from the target pool of 50-200 or so sealed envelopes, she wrote that number on the outside of the envelope. I also kept track of what number we were currently on and, when I was ready to do the session, I wrote that number at the top of my first page of paper. And I think something about writing that number on that first page has a ring of "ritual" about it, in that it sort of signals to my subconscious that I'm about to start remote viewing.

But, apart from that, the target cue numbers are - for me - meaningless. There have been many times when I wanted to do a session but my wife wasn't available to select a target envelope for me and write the number on the outside of the envelope. It didn't matter. It had no effect on my accuracy. There have been times when I was away from home, wanted to do a session, and couldn't recall what number we were currently on. So I used no number at all. I just thought - as you do, Daz - "target". Similarly, it had no effect on my accuracy. And there have even been many times when the target wasn't even selected yet, I couldn't recall number we were on, and I just thought "next future target" - likewise, it had no effect on accuracy.

But numbers DO work well as target cues for several reasons. One of these is that, by themselves, they carry no emotional or conceptual weight, no intrinsic associative meaning. A "four" could be a "four" of almost anything, for example. In no way does it imply, associate to, or refer to anything specific. Contrast this to the military and government practice of assigning code names; they use such words/phrases as "moondust", "blue flame", "rock garden", etc. Whatever code name they use means nothing regarding the actual project or subject they are associated with. They don't describe the project in any way. For example, the government's UFO studies have been code named "grudge", "sign", and "blue book". The government's RV programs have been code named "grillflame", centerlane" and "stargate". But using random words/phrases like this would not work very well as target cues because they immediately bring up associations in the viewer's mind. Even if the viewer knows the words/phrases are random and meaningless, they would STILL create instant associations, making the RV work much more difficult. But numbers do not create such instant associations. In this sense, they are meaningless, which is the very thing that makes them great for use as target cues.

Daz wrote:
"Note I say 'hard' not impossible. Numbers have no form, they are gestalt symbols for collections of things - their intangibility is the only thing that makes them harder to view, as per most intangible things. There is no mystery here - no need to complicate things, IMO."

Agreed. Numbers have no reality apart from the person who is doing the counting. They are a descriptor, and it's tough to describe a descriptor, apparently. Numbers have no independent reality. They are always a concept that must be linked to something else. The number "five" does not exist as a stand-alone concept. There are five "things". Without the "things" to be counted, "five" has no reality. It seems that this factor is at least part of what makes numbers so difficult - that, and the fact that, as soon as numbers are considered at all, the viewer is immediately thrown into a forced-choice scenario. And we all know that free-response, as opposed to forced-choice, is what many PSI researchers believe makes RV such a robust psychic product.

I HAVE had numbers appear in remote viewings that were spot-on accurate - but it was always a spontaneous event. In no case was I ever consciously attempting to perceive a number (with the exception of perceiving that a small number of objects were present at the targets site, say, four trees, or three buildings, for example).

And, having said all that, I DO believe the mind can be entrained to do just about anything. I think the idea of entraining the mind to associate specific numbers with specific scents holds a lot of promise. That was a new idea for me (can't recall exactly who came up with that earlier) and I think it's a very exciting one. I'd love to see someone make a real effort at doing that and seeing the results.
 
Top