NV

nightworking

New Member
Hi all,

I've just invented Near Viewing (NV), which is just the opposite of Remote Viewing.  
No joke, this will help you learn how to interpret your RV sessions. It goes like this:

1. Pick any existing object or vivid memory of yours and examine it into detail for some minutes (5-10 minutes).

2. Immediately after you have done this, you need to write down the impressions and associations still flashing up in your mind. This is almost like starting an RV session without any prior cool-down. Do not recall or describe the actual target! The goal is to write down what you associate with the target. Do this just as if this was a normal RV session.

3. Analyze your session data and compare it to your target. Think about why you have associated this and that with your target and write down your conclusion. Perhaps there is a way to do this as some kind of table.

Repeat this procedure for a lot of different targets. Create a look-up table as a matrix of impressions and actual target features. This should help big time in interpreting your RV sessions. This look-up table should be valid at least for you, if not for all RVers.

Just an idea, please tell me what you think about it...

nightworking
 

nightworking

New Member
Not exactly, insofar as it isn't free. NV is directed, controlled. And another important point is the analysis, which you can do by yourself.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
This is worth consideration. The following factors come to mind for me:

1 - Anything that helps a viewer better understand their own mind, symbology, mental processing, etc. is conducive to better understanding one's own remote viewing data. There are probably 1.2 million ways we could go about exploring this. You have described one of those ways. Sounds fine to me!

2 - Unfortunately, symbology in RV sessions is not only not consistent, but if anything is best known for its intriguing--if exasperating--tendency to be novel.

In other words, it may not be possible to try and understand RV data with the same "predictable cross reference" that a couple folks have written "dream symbol" books with. Not only is data not the same for all people but it's not even the same for the same viewer on the same target, oddly!

3 - A friend and I once talked -- here somewhere I think -- in regards to symbolic data and such -- about how generally, in a session, eventually you start recognizing symbolic data and eventually what it means at the time, and it's a good thing because without the sense of what it means at the time it's often pretty hopeless ;-) -- one reason is that it's usually so novel.

I do get repeating stuff but usually the stuff that repeats so I can predict 'what it means' is NOT visual -- the dynamic clear visuals are nearly always symbolic and unique for me -- usually the stuff I come to recognize is a 'sense', instead.

But you know, good thinking; there are probably several exercises we could come up with that would be good viewer exercises. You're thinking! You're innovating! That's cool. ;D

PJ
 

nightworking

New Member
PJ,

you wrote:
Anything that helps a viewer better understand their own mind, symbology, mental processing, etc. is conducive to better understanding one's own remote viewing data. There are probably 1.2 million ways we could go about exploring this. You have described one of those ways. Sounds fine to me!
:)
I want to proceed from this state. I'm looking for a method of making RV failproof. Sort of a checksumming or statistical method. Such a thing should exist, and it would establish RV in the scientific community.
I am working as a professional scientist and I can tell you that some approaches to artificial intelligence, like pattern recognition based systems, imply RV-like capabilities under certain circumstances (which include that we are part of a fractal system and there exists no such thing as a real random event and so on ... blabla :)).
Generally spoken, pattern recognition methods filter a high-dimensional data space (ie your memory) based on some input, generating some output which was once observed to coincide with that input. That may sound a little difficult now, but basically this is a look-up method: "find the closest match".
Only thing is, our brain stores lots of data. Internally, our brain must apply statistics to come to a conclusion. Our normal thinking is based on significant, well established and cross-checked links. RV is based on non-significant, rare data that is also stored in our memory. We percieve RV as non-logical, usually irrelevant "noise". Now what do we do with noisy data in science, eg in a measurement? We need to average lots of samples to come to a significant conclusion. And that's what we need to do with RV data that was decoded by means of "my" NV look-up table.
It's about signal/noise ratio. Each single output sample of the decoder (whatever that may be) is distorted by noise of at least the same order of magnitude. That means we need to record many samples to come to a significant conclusion. Anyway, I will try that in the future... :)

In other words, it may not be possible to try and understand RV data with the same "predictable cross reference" that a couple folks have written "dream symbol" books with.
Dream symbol books are in fact kind of a cross reference or look-up table. But as mentioned before, their "output" can only get significant for higher numbers of observations (provided that the book contains no trash), which obviously is difficult for dreams.

Not only is data not the same for all people but it's not even the same for the same viewer on the same target, oddly!
No, not oddly at all! That can be explained as noise which is part of any measurement (see above). We just need to repeat our sessions several times. A poor viewer like me can possibly come to a good conclusion after some 10 sessions on the same target. Advantage: This result would then be repeatable and reproducible. A physical measurement of a noise-containing quantity often needs to be repeated 100s of times and averaged until you see a stable output. Looking at each of these 100s of samples, you wouldn't see anything - "no result".

Any thoughts? :D

Best regards
nightworking
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Hi nightworking,

I'm looking for a method of making RV failproof.
Yes, I also pray for peace on earth. ;D

Sort of a checksumming or statistical method.
Lots of methods of psi, of analysis, of measure, exist. Prior to reinventing any wheels, be sure you look into what's out there, might save some time.

But psychic functioning is not linear, left brain thing. Although I believe practice and insight and personal clarity can contribute to whatever potential we have got as viewers, I do tend to suspect that the "need" to make remote viewing into something really logical is, at root, a psychological response to the experience.

This is one of those things that gets buried because of course, lots of people are logical and it is considered by our society to be a good thing, to be practical and linear, seek evidence and repeatability, etc. So a person can do that, concerning RV, and seem like that's normal. Usually it is prompted by more than scientific curiosity, though; usually it's the left brain of a viewer desperately trying to fit RV into a box they are more comfortable with because it isn't the size of the universe. :)

(This reminds me of how some habits are also buried by cultural conditioning. For example workaholism is often unrecognized, because working hard, needing more money, are considered normal, so passing the 'balance' point is usually not noticed until someone is really extreme.)

Such a thing should exist,
Should? SHOULD?? I'm teasing you. What branch of science would "should" be found in? Even in the human issues we can study far more easily than psi, anything that comes through the subconscious, such as psychology, is at best a 'soft' science we are still developing, and at worse a sandpit of confused bio-sophy nearly as lost as those it seeks to treat.

and it would establish RV in the scientific community.
Hmmmn, well nobody's ever tried that before. ;D

I am all for supporting all earnest inquiry into RV -- from any perspective. It is, though, sort of funny to watch the 'new' experience of people are given to a science bent. They instantly are sure that they can track all this down logically. They figure they'll end up with grids and spreadsheets and charts and in the end they can measure it and calculate it and boil it all down and it will all work like it should and make sense, because they will have figured it out.

Funny how many people I see go through that and how few of them are still around a couple years later. ;-) So hang in! Be forewarned. ;D

some approaches to artificial intelligence, like pattern recognition based systems, imply RV-like capabilities under certain circumstances (which include that we are part of a fractal system and there exists no such thing as a real random event and so on ... blabla  :)).
The work of Dr. Edwin C. May and James Spottiswoode in particular has suggested more than once--not sure it's all published publicly, but some is--that perhaps everything is either (a) psi based in precognition, or (b) something else we can't explain, but, the "augmentation of decision" is not only impossible to rule out but when specifically tested for, seems to be the case. Unfortunately this theory, which it is a lovely confirmation to models such as Roberts' "Aspect Psychology" and the related works of Seth, pretty much obliterates current mental models in our world. So, whether it is accurate or not, it is unlikely to be even seriously considered any time soon by more than a few.

Generally spoken, pattern recognition methods filter a high-dimensional data space (ie your memory) based on some input, generating some output which was once observed to coincide with that input. That may sound a little difficult now, but basically this is a look-up method: "find the closest match".
Makes sense. Joseph McMoneagle has talked about remote viewing seeming to use the life experience of the viewer and the mind presenting the 'closest match' of the viewer to whatever the target is.

Internally, our brain must apply statistics to come to a conclusion.
Now here, I see a fairly gigantic assumption I am not sure I agree with. Though I will agree that the mind seems capable of enormous innate 'calculative' abilities, I do not perceive it as close to the computer corollary as many do. I believe that there may be connections which are wholly intuitive--not even neurologically trackable--which may be totally non-apparent.

Our normal thinking is based on significant, well established and cross-checked links.
It seems to be.

RV is based on non-significant, rare data that is also stored in our memory.
Perhaps. I don't really know. I suspect, from viewing experience, that the process of remote viewing *utilizes* information stored in our memory but that is not necessarily the same thing as memory itself; as for significance, that is something wholly subjective to the individual at the time, is it not?

We percieve RV as non-logical, usually irrelevant "noise".
Um. Do you mean we perceive "psi data" as that? RV is a process, not a noun.

In case you're unaware, quite a bit of serious work has been done--by genuine experts and Really Smart People LOL--on some of these topics; finding a way to talk with some of them about what has been done and what was learned might shave off, oh, 15-20 years from your line of research here. ;-)

Now what do we do with noisy data in science, eg in a measurement? We need to average lots of samples to come to a significant conclusion. And that's what we need to do with RV data that was decoded by means of "my" NV look-up table.
Primarily, what you are seeking is a fairly reliable means of analysis. All inquiry in this regard is interesting to me. This should not however be confused with remote viewing itself; in a way these are two different but obviously interrelated subjects.

Each single output sample of the decoder (whatever that may be) is distorted by noise of at least the same order of magnitude.
What makes you assume that? What basis have we for deciding each single output sample is distorted at all, let alone by 'the same order of magnitude', however that could be measured?

I mentioned the unique/novel nature of the symbols and you said:

We just need to repeat our sessions several times.
On paper, it sounds like it ought to be that easy, doesn't it. :) Go ahead. Drop your targets back into your pool so that you get them several times. Do them ten times even, several different targets, doubleblind. Then you will understand why I have some humor about this. You are making some assumptions about remote viewing experience and data that I have not seen to hold true. But maybe for you they will, who knows. :D

A poor viewer like me can possibly come to a good conclusion after some 10 sessions on the same target.
Conclusion about what? Do you assume that in each session you will describe the same parts of the target, and that if you do, you will use the same sorts of symbology or verbage?

Actually don't get me wrong -- in some regards I agree with you! -- I have written more than once about my feeling that RV is like learning a foreign language, and gradually as you get more experience with the feel of certain info it starts coming 'naturally' to you, and you suddenly are up another level so to speak; the more experience you have with getting a certain kind of data repeatedly, and seeing feedback, the more likely you are to "learn" the "feel" of that info. So in essence, some of your starting theory agrees with this kind of idea; that practice teaches us, the more practice, the more we learn.

But, it isn't quite as straightforward as it might seem. There are 1001 variances even with the same person on the same target. And there is NO indication that different viewers get the same things or in the same ways--not at all. That is in fact one of my minor complaints about what people misunderstand about methodology; it does not speak to each unique human being better understanding themselves, but rather, it speaks to an external method which, if you 'pay attention', works primarily to teach you to "pay attention" to yourself. At which point, THEN you can start the same road--nobody gets out of it--of understand your unique mind. ;-)

Advantage: This result would then be repeatable and reproducible.
It might; then again, we may find peace, too.

A physical measurement of a noise-containing quantity often needs to be repeated 100s of times and averaged until you see a stable output.
You ASSUME there is going to end with a stable output. And that is limiting this only to one person; with multiple people you definitely are not going to get one. Not without deliberately entraining the entire group in some hypnotic modality of a scientist or leader, which in the end will always speak far more to DAT than to the 'real world' of psi outside that environment.

Any thoughts?  :D
Usually more thoughts than answers. ;D

PJ
 

nightworking

New Member
Hi PJ,

you wrote
Lots of methods of psi, of analysis, of measure, exist. Prior to reinventing any wheels, be sure you look into what's out there, might save some time.
Obviously, none of the former methods succeeded; or do you see our weather forecase specialists applying RV? Sometimes, re-inventing the wheel is exactly what needs to be done then.

But psychic functioning is not linear, left brain thing. Although I believe practice and insight and personal clarity can contribute to whatever potential we have got as viewers, I do tend to suspect that the "need" to make remote viewing into something really logical is, at root, a psychological response to the experience.
Perhaps you're right. However, I believe that we can explain anything we can observe. This is not to say that PSI can be explained by current physics. "Any advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -- Arthur C. Clarke

Funny how many people I see go through that and how few of them are still around a couple years later. So hang in! Be forewarned.
:-/ Not my problem if they give up. I need no scientific explanation to believe in the truth of some psi phenomena like telepathy. But not needing an explanation and seeing many folks give up on that doesn't mean that there IS no explanation.

everything is either (a) psi based in precognition, or (b) something else we can't explain, but, the "augmentation of decision" is not only impossible to rule out but when specifically tested for, seems to be the case
This reminds me of both quantum theory and that Matrix movie.

I believe that there may be connections which are wholly intuitive--not even neurologically trackable--which may be totally non-apparent.
I have a different opinion here. The spatial and temporal resolutions of Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (NMR), which is currently in use for the visualization of brain activity as far as I know, are far too low for displaying the activity of a few neurons. They visualize AREAL activity. And am sure it will never be possible to build a device that detects the exact neural activity, in chronological order, that is related to a certian thought. But that would be required to prove that intuition is in fact a non-significant output of our brain. Telepathy would then be the ability to lower the acceptance threshold for non-significant outputs. Disprove that! :)

Um. Do you mean we perceive "psi data" as that? RV is a process, not a noun. In case you're unaware, quite a bit of serious work has been done--by genuine experts and Really Smart People LOL--on some of these topics; finding a way to talk with some of them about what has been done and what was learned might shave off, oh, 15-20 years from your line of research here.
Thanks for the education, ;) but my first answer applies here.

What makes you assume that? What basis have we for deciding each single output sample is distorted at all, let alone by 'the same order of magnitude', however that could be measured?
If a mental association can be non-significant (as it is not supported by enough links; "enough" corresponds to the above mentioned threshold), and if you get different associations when trying to refine your RV data, this means that actually, your association output contains noise. And if you can accept the model of non-significant brain output as telepathy, then you must also accept that over time (ie, sensory input changes), you will get different outputs. This is noise. And if you have to repeat a "request" a lot of times to come to an acceptable conclusion, this lets you actually compute the noise level as compared to the signal level. In this case, this will be at least one order of magnitude. I'm sure.

On paper, it sounds like it ought to be that easy, doesn't it.
It would be if we accelerated the session. This must be required by the protocol. Record as many impressions as possible in a fixed period of time (say 5 mins). No sketches. The words you may use to describe your impressions are also fixed. Do this for about 1 hour. You will have 100s of codes. Decode. Process. Repeat this for some days. Conclude. Answer. Repeat this all several times. Check if answer is the same. I'm sure it will be if the decoder is OK. :) I am not trying to persuade you. I will prove this somewhen. Perhaps you will have to wait some 20 years... ;D ;D

I think the rest of your posting is answered by that too. ;D

And I like to reinvent the wheel. Watch a genetic algorithm learn. Seen globally, the learning curve reaches local minima which are dead ends. This is to say that sometimes we need to take a step back in order to be able to take the right turn.

nightworking
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Well keep us informed of your progress -- it is all a lot of fun! If I have to wait 20 years, I hope by then I have at least one or two more of my OWN answers, too.

I think your idea of limiting the data to words, limiting the time for session to just a few minutes, and then limiting the actual words, sounds logical--but in the end you're putting yourself in a forced-choice scenario, which is the polar opposite of RV which by part of its definition is free-response psi.

However something similar actually IS done but not analytically -- and that is the whole point (well ok, much of the first fundamental point) of the use of ideograms. People practice ideograms and eventually one can look at an id and say "person" or "water" or whatever. Of course, they often change once you have them down. :)

Given your interest in very "fixed options" for data and precise replication of process, I recommend if you ever consider a formal methodology or recruiting viewers for real specific experiments, to look into TRV. Some of the fundamental concepts that despite similar methods shift a little from method to method to teacher, are probably more kin with you in that area.

Make a better wheel. Why not? :D

PJ
 

nightworking

New Member
Thanks Joe :D :D :D

PJ, the viewer can perform a free session but must conclude it using a fixed vocabulary (which can be fairly large). I consider this no forced-choice method (like Zener cards etc.).

Anyway, I will keep you informed about the progress. :)
 

cyberyoyo

New Member
Hi nightworking,
that's a very good exercise. I practice already something similar , actually I consider most of my PSI sensation as some sort of remanent sensation (like remanent image) except that instead of coming from my past sensations it comes from somewhere else.so I use to examine my sensations deformations as they vanish after the intitial stimulus.
The idea of using it as a calibration is very interesting, although PJ pointed the inpredictability of the subconscious, but the exercice might help people get into the session more easily.
 

waterway

Member
This NV stuff is a good idea, for all the reasons mentioned. Christine Hardy's book "Networks of Meaning" sheds a lot of light on this topic, so you may want to check it out. I have droned on and on about it here on other threads.... :p

I think the reason "symbols" and associations change is cuz once we "learn" the association, the association is now with learning the association.....uh.... get it?
 

waterway

Member
...which leads to a very good question from me.

What is the difference between as assoication and a Jungian archetype. Could I relearn archetypes? Do archetypes have any place in RV?

???
 
K

Klaatu

Guest
That _is_ a good question, waterway. As I understand it, an association may be unique to an individual, something that arises from the person's experience. For example, if you were punished severely for eating the chocolate cake your mother was saving for some special occasion, you may have an association of chocolate cake with being bad, or something of the kind.

An archetype is a symbol or thought form shared by the entire human race, or at least, a large chunk of it. For example, "mother" would be a shared archetype.

Karl
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Waterway we'd need a new thread for a decent talk about archetypes. ;-) PJ
 

waterway

Member
PJ said:

"Waterway we'd need a new thread for a decent talk about archetypes."


I guess there is probably already one... I will search for it. Christine Hardy's book "networks of meaning" suggests, I think, that each "thing" we percieve is bound up with meaning(s), connected to every other "thing" by their shared meaning. Archetypes would be seen as very strongly connected to lots of things, so that their meaning would not be altered. Other "things" can change, as their relationship to other things change. The more relationships a "thing" has, the less likely it is to change meaning. In the example in this thread, the symbols our subconscious uses to provide info can change as we change the situation where they are worked with.
 
Top