pjrv : Messages : 3539-3547 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3539?)
2006/07/01 15:37:20
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#3539
From: "Glyn"
Date: Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:10 pm
Subject: Glyn's Retro-Tasking experiment glynis5799
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi PJ and anyone else who is interested :-),
Carrying on from my previous post, here is the 'experiment' Actually
there isn't much to it, it's just that IMO the results were quite
impressive seeing how short Liz's session was. It may appear as
coincidence to some, but not to me ;-).
Incidentally I obtained Liz's permission to post this, and would
never have mentioned it to anyone else without her say-so.
*Warning, this is very long, so I'd stop here if you're not that
interested...but I would prefer it if you carried on ;-)
.............................................................
Parts from my email to Liz follow, and her session is at the end. My
mail contains some personal information about my husband which I need
to include, but I have snipped irrelevant bits:
To Liz..
I'm interested in retro-tasking solely because I favour 'Future
Memory' theory as to a possible explanation as to how 'psi' may work,
and if so then it should be observable in a retro-tasking scenario.
(Well actually I think FM may not be the whole story, but it's a
start anyway if effect repetition could be demonstrated.) I said on
PJs Board that I would like to observe it (retro-tasking) working.
Some sessions that people do are much too long though...there's too
much there, ...and quite frankly you could find 'evidence' of most
things in the natural universe in some of them. LOL! I wanted
something shorter. What I planned to do was to find one of my old
shorter ones and study them, then go and open a book and the first
picture I saw I would check for correlations. I had that procedure
in mind..................................when I saw your session this
morning.
I didn't do it deliberately Liz, I hadn't even planned it that way,
but when I looked at your session I immediately decided to go out of
the room and the first picture I saw I would use as 'feedback' to
your session.......as if I had just done the session myself and was
opening the target feedback. It's an unusual back to front concept,
but I think that is how retro tasking is supposed to work....?? Don't
know really though as noone actually gives much detail re procedures
to follow. LOL!
Well, out of the room I went, and my husband was on his computer in
another room. As I said, I was going to find a book and open it, but
I saw he was looking at graphics on his machine. There
were 'thumbnails' of a number of pictures there, so I asked him to
make one full-sized.
Now this is where it becomes interesting, or coincidental, or
whatever.... because there is a bit of a background to this. About 18
months ago my husband was seriously ill.
It happened suddenly on a Monday morning and he was completely
incapacitated. I had to
telephone urgently for an ambulance.
Well it took a long time for him to recover, . Early on while
he was
recovering he decided he'd like to build a simple little model radio-
controlled airplane (nothing fast), so he could try and get back into
his hobby. He later discovered that it was the sort of plane that was
meant to be flown indoors and he had nowhere to fly it as his club
had no indoor facility......recently his club have obtained an
indoor
flying area, so my husband decided to build the model......only to
find he'd lost the instructions.
So....that graphic I used as feedback, turned out to be part of the
building instructions that he had just downloaded from the supplier's
website. Phew...sorry about all that Liz, but the background
information is necessary, as you will see.
Well I compared the 'feedback' with your session.......just had to
didn't I? No nasty motives on my part, just pure interest. Now this
is where you are going to have to take my word for it. I can send the
picture if you are interested, but it is not so much the picture, as
the whole overall concept/gestalt that is so very fascinating!
I have copied your mail (sent) to Freevent below, with my comments in
caps/blue. You will see some of your comments do not appear to fit,
but an appreciable percentage do. I will NOT, *EVER* publish this or
post it to someone else without your permission. It was an
unintentional, spontaneous thing...but I could
not miss the opportunity now could I? LOL!
I think Future Memory *is* at work here, and it looks like it's
yours...maybe this mail from me works like your 'feedback' for your
session back in the past. If you are surprised (or experienced any
strong emotion) when you first read this then it may have stood out
back in the past when you did your session. Now *that* I think is how
so-called retro tasking could be made to work. On the surface if that
is so then it appears that the past is changed...whereas it is only
the normal progression of events, the feedback that is picked up on
being further over the 'horizon' than anticipated; that's all. Did I
hear myself saying 'That's All'!? LOL!
There may be a part I am playing too.Who knows? We have a way to go
before understanding 'psi', but we will never do so unless we start
to play outside the box a bit.
..........................
Liz gave her permission, so her session (and my comments in CAPs) is
below................
............................
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Hambrook [mailto:elizabeth....au]
Sent: 16 November 2003 03:24
To: Freevent...ups.com
Subject: [Freevent] RV on self
G'day Tunde,
Here's a session I did a while back. I had put a photo of myself in
my pool with the instructions to describe target.
Unfortunately I only spent about 5-10 minutes on this session. I wish
I'd done more. The symbology is interesting.
Could you all take note of the last entry and next time I'm acting a
bit dubiously please remember it. LOL
A journey- troubling, unique but satisfying
Postman- deliverer of messages
vehicle
YES
transmitter
YES!!!
ambulance
YES
sorrow
YES
piqued
MAYBE...ARE YOU?
joyous- sense of relief
saturation
aeroplane
YES!!!
problem with propeller and/or the motor
I'LL LET YOU KNOW IF THERE IS WHEN HE STARTS BUILDING IT...THAT WILL
BE MORE THAN INTERESTING TO SEE :-)
blooming
reservoir
friendly
fashionable
stable
....................
Well that's it folks. Now I can almost hear some of you wondering
what the fuss was all about ;-). However, considering the brevity of
Liz's session, even if it was coincidence it was quite good :-).
Well,you will draw your own conclusions; just thought some would find
it interesting, and at least PJ has got a reply. LOL!
Sincerely,
Glyn
Reply | Forward
#3542
From: "pjgaenir"
Date: Fri Nov 21, 2003 3:02 pm
Subject: Re: Glyn's Retro-Tasking experiment pjgaenir
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hiya Glyn,
> there isn't much to it, it's just that
> IMO the results were quite
> impressive seeing how short Liz's session
> was. It may appear as
> coincidence to some, but not to me ;-).
Well it might be, but there is probably more at work, given I've done
this on fairly long sessions, which were quite good ones as well, and
still been surprised.
> Incidentally I obtained Liz's permission
> to post this, and would
> never have mentioned it to anyone else
> without her say-so.
Thanks. I once teased Dick Allgire that since he was so mocking
about the subject I was going to use all his online sessions for my
experiments, LOL! I never did but I thought it was a funny quip.
Whether or not there are 'ethics' to that, I think depends entirely
on WHY seemingly positive results can be seen from experiments.
It may have nothing whatever to do with the viewer or session and
everything to do with the analysis and DAT theory instead, for
example, which would mean, that using someone's session would be no
more invasive than say, asking a question, opening the bible or
shakespeare with your eyes closed and pointing to a page and reading
something expecting it to answer or apply to the question.
(And personally, I think in the real world, nearly any session done
for another person has potential group-energy issues to deal with. So
I figure even if it WAS so, that's "the real world" and it's the one
I have to function in, so I don't care if people were RTing mine.)
> Some sessions that people do are much too
> long though...there's too
> much there, ...and quite frankly you could
> find 'evidence' of most
> things in the natural universe in some of
> them. LOL! I wanted
> something shorter.
One thing you notice when looking through public sessions is that
(a) a lot of the data is somewhat useless (I posted on that eons
ago), and
(b) what IS useful is often not helpful "out of context", so unless
there were lots of viewers and analysis OR the viewer made
decent "conceptual" contact with the target, it's iffy, and
(c) many of the sessions have enough info to incorporate, as you
said, much of the universe in them to varying degrees LOL.
Add to that the research finding that about 30% of RV info pertains
to about 30% of all targets, and that's at the pro level, heck
probably more with lesser-skilled viewers. Then consider how many
english words can be used in many different ways (as nouns, concepts
or verbs for example).
It gets a little complicated to separate all this out.
> I immediately decided to go out of
> the room and the first picture I saw
> I would use as 'feedback' to
> your session.......as if I had just
> done the session myself and was
> opening the target feedback. It's an
> unusual back to front concept,
Not entirely. Although I use a practice pool, I generally choose the
envelope (or have my kid do it) after I do the session. Sometimes I
use a computer program, and I do the session and then generate the
target. I think it leans harder on the development of the belief
systems.
However for an extended series, you probably ought to set a less
arbitrary means of selecting your targets, to make it less subjective.
> but I think that is how retro tasking
> is supposed to work....??
Well nobody's an expert. There are probably a few ways it could be
done. I once posted a list of 'questions' that would have to be
considered on the topic and it was long, and addressed many different
ways such a thing could be set up. I guess the gestalt of the idea
is simply that one has a session done by someone else on a target,
and then one takes a different-target, and attempts to apply the
session to the one newly-selected target, even though the session was
not done with that one in mind.
I might add that the archives have messages from both Paul and Joe
about this.
> it is not so much the picture, as
> the whole overall concept/gestalt
> that is so very fascinating!
One thing I found interesting was the weird symmetry of coincidence
that seemed present in the experiments I did.
One thought that came to me is that perhaps our reality is actually
based on a more limited number of 'basics' than we realize. Sort of
like how art schools say that you start with a small number of basic
forms and from those you can pretty much ad-lib to draw anything. It
seems maybe our whole world is like that.
> You will see some of your comments do not appear to fit,
> but an appreciable percentage do.
Well that goes for any RV session. Of course this might get partly
back to the issue of viewing skill and detail.
For example, Skip Atwater has the transcript of one of Joe's sessions
on his website where he's talking about what turned out to be Mars.
Well, he's saying things like "...the aftereffects of a geological
cataclysm..." or something like that. That is a TAD specific, if you
ask me!; it would be considerably more difficult to apply THAT level
of "concept-depth" in a session to lots of other things, than most
the sessions of developing viewers that I've seen.
> Well that's it folks. Now I can almost
> hear some of you wondering
> what the fuss was all about ;-).
Well it is fairly hilarious that there is even an airplane ref in the
data. :-) Now you have to ask if that was YOU and your arbitrary
target selection, or her. Might be good to choose a multi-target
source (or even have other people give you one), and just grab the
next target to apply to the next session.
I still think Decision Augmentation Theory could be behind this.
This could even explain why some people in science (any science) can
research and get one result and others get another.
Thanks for responding to that. I'd given up, lol! :-)
PJ
Reply | Forward
#3544
From: "Glyn"
Date: Fri Nov 21, 2003 8:06 pm
Subject: RE: Re: Glyn's Retro-Tasking experiment glynis5799
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi PJ,
> It may have nothing whatever to do with the viewer or session and
> everything to do with the analysis and DAT theory instead, for
> example, which would mean, that using someone's session would be no
> more invasive than say, asking a question, opening the bible or
> shakespeare with your eyes closed and pointing to a page and reading
> something expecting it to answer or apply to the question.
Yes, I cant rule out that something other than FM (or instead of) could be
working, and my views are not set in stone. Maybe it was Lizs precall, and
maybe mine too&.perhaps there was an interaction of some kind going on; or
perhaps none of those.
Decision Augmentation Theory? Now Ive heard you and other people talk about
that quite a lot, but Ive never really read about it any detail; no excuse
though, I will have to..
According to FM theory as per Dunne, it would probably have been Liz accessing
her future memory of the final feedback (which would have been my email to her),
and what happened in the middle was not that important to her.
However, if this retro-tasking is still supposed to work without the person who
did the session knowing anything about it, or getting any kind of intentional or
unintentional feedback, then they would never have any future memories to access
so there would have to be more to it than that. Maybe I was using Lizs session
as a sort of question to which I wanted to find an answer&.as per your
example of asking questions and opening books to find an answer, which made a
great deal of sense..and that sort of thing seems to happens such a lot to
different people. All I had to do in that case was find an answer that fit the
question ; and I didnt have to go far&my feedback was only in the next room;
although I would have had to precall it to find it without doing a written
session of my own; but why not(?).
I dont know though, my psi ability isnt usually that good&but maybe the
sheer spontaneity of the thing may have accounted for the success&sort of
beginners luck. However think there is something else at work too. I must read
about DAT.
There are paradoxes all over the *loody place, I know ;-). Its just getting
the sequence of events right perhaps.. maybe because we are hopelessly stuck
with only being able to experience cause and effect in a linear fashion (at a
conscious level anyway), we just cant grasp the big picture here. The answer
seems so near but also so far. Meanwhile we can have fun speculating until we
die of frustration though cant we? LOL!
> Well it is fairly hilarious that there is even an airplane ref in the
> data. :-) Now you have to ask if that was YOU and your arbitrary
> target selection, or her. Might be good to choose a multi-target
> source (or even have other people give you one), and just grab the
> next target to apply to the next session.
Yes, Im going to do that, it will be interesting to compare our results.
Yes, the airplane data in Lizs session was impressive&..but what was much more
significant to me was that in that same short session Liz also mentioned
transmitter! Heck, transmitters and airplanes&..and the graphic was about
radio-controlled model aeroplanes! Now, in a session that length&.well you just
cant get a lot closer can you? If that was pure coincidence then I wish I had
that sort of luck doing the lottery.;-).
> I still think Decision Augmentation Theory could be behind this.
> This could even explain why some people in science (any science) can
> research and get one result and others get another.
Thats settled&Im off to look up DAT so I know what you are talking about. :-)
Thanks for responding to that. I'd given up, lol! :-)
Everything comes to she who waits&...LOL!!
Cheers for now,
Kind regards,
Glyn
Reply | Forward
#3547
From: "Glyn"
Date: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:51 am
Subject: Theories of 'Psi' glynis5799
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi PJ,
Below is extract from the Journal of Parapsychology, Vo. 59, September 1995,
Decision Augmentation Theory: Toward a model of Anomalous Mental Phenomena by
Edwin C May, Jessica M. Utts, and S James P. Spottiswoode.
http://www.lfr.org/csl/library/DATjp.pdf
It is an extremely interesting theory, and now I know what you are talking about
:-).
I especially liked the following sentence:
In fact, DAT leads to the idea that there may be only one underlying mechanism
of all anomalous mental phenomena, namely, a transfer of information from future
to past
And this one:
A potential underlying mechanism for DAT is precognition.
I was cherry-picking there, but Yes, yes, and yes :-)&.it is the same idea
isnt it, precognition, the transfer of information from future to past .
Personally though I think FM theorists would say something like the accessing
of future information from the present. Sounds the same, but its a whole step
further to propose that a conscious action made today can effect or affect a
past event.
I prefer to think of it as starting at box A (my mind today) and moving to box
B( my mind tomorrow) and bringing some memories back to me at box A. I get in a
real muddle trying to think of it any other way :-).
Basically I think we are working from the same end PJ, but FM theory goes a
little further in that it suggests a how precognition works, (ie obtaining
memories from our own minds down the timeline), and Dunnes and ODonnells
experiments do seem to point to that; Dunnes especially.
Dunnes theory of Serial Time goes further towards a how, and it is
complicated&.but IMO similar to some of the quantum mechanics ideas of today
actually. Multiple dimensions, maybe out of synch with each other
time-wise, &..and Dunnes idea of serial time(s)&&¬ too much of a stretch
to see the similarity in concept. Sean ODonnell leans more towards a reality
where all exists at once, but that we are only consciously aware of a present
and a past in a linear setting, but we can learn to deliberately precall what
we see as our future, to a greater or lesser extent.
I have attached an interesting link. Have you heard of the Quantum Mechanical
Theory of Psi? See below:
http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/Physical_H.html
I liked this bit from the above page (talking about QMTP theory)&..
Psi is also seen as being independent of space and time. A requirement of
hidden variables is that they must, according to a well-known tenet of quantum
theory called Bell's Theorem, be non-local in nature. In real-terms this would
mean that the space-time location of the system to be affected is not important:
only the feedback to the observer is. Psi is also independent of task
complexity. Again, the important feature is the act of observation, so it is
only the feedback which is important. This does mean that some form of true
feedback to the observer is vital. However, this again brings up the divergence
problem although in this model, while future psi agents can also have an effect,
it is argued that they can act only to increase the variance of experimental
results rather than change what has already been observed.
The value of feedback again&and it would *have* to be our memory of
experiencing it&&.eh? ;-)
We seem to be agreed then PJ, only slight differences of possible mechanism
to argue over&.&LOL!
Kind regards,
Glyn
|