pjrv : Messages : 182-182 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/182?)
21:08:22
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#182
From: jsentient...
Date: Sat Jul 20, 2002 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: Target Strength jsentient
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Palyne, your thought that social consciousness exposure or involvement (with
the target) could be RV inductive is one that I also considered.
It's a good question,,,,,,,no, it's a great question. It needs experimental
testing. My own limited RV experience tells me that social consciousness
exposure is irrelevent,,,,not significant.
NTL, I am convinced that the social factor is part of what's going on,,,,,the
phenomenon seems to implicate connectivity. This is not to say IMO there is
such a thing as "the collective unconsciouse", or that everything is
consciouse (to include inanimate objects).
Consider the possibility of projected or assigned perspective or even
bi-location. Perception in such cases would be self grounded / generated,
but would seem to indicate another source.
I suspect what ever I can imagine, can be real. But the social factor is not
irrelevant. It may be that it is consensus that establishes sanity.
Well, when it comes to PSI, the question what's real is fundemental and
problematic. Even more interesting however is the question of meaning.
Meaning is abstact,,,,it is most definately the product of minds. I know it
is possible to percieve meaning associated with a RV target. And when this
is accomplished we have gone beyond description, beyond "sensing".
Jay
pjrv : Messages : 176-185 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/176?)
21:08:39
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#176
From: "Palyne Gaenir"
Date: Sat Jul 20, 2002 1:49 pm
Subject: Target Strength dennanm
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
I've been told that some targets simply only have so much data to acquire
psychically.
That for example, if the target is just an empty field, that there might be less
chance of this having enough 'strength' to impinge on someone as "I'm viewing
an empty field", than for example, another might impinge on someone "I'm
viewing a playground".
Targets with repeating patterns somehow seem to have a little more 'strength'
on that. As if repeating data somehow provides more signal strength or
something.
Why is that?
Some metaphysical exponential effect of likeness of intent - can intent be in
allegedly inanimate object/environments?
Could a big field have 'less data to acquire' than a big something-else?
Could human intent matter? Would an orchard have more psychic data than
a field because it was planted? Or would it be the 'patterns' that would make it
stronger? Or is all such theory bogus?
Many years ago I theorized two things, that (a) what you touch, touches you
back, that RV is never one-way; and (b) that perhaps human consciousness
vested in a given target could affect the strength at which it affected viewers.
For example, (b) would suggest that maybe the great pyramid and eiffel tower
might be strong targets because millions (if not billions) of people have gazed
on them and focused on them and photographed them -- than perhaps the
same general shape or size standing in a field in a kansas, or somewhat
unknown in the midst of a mountain range.
Looking back over sessions, what do you guys think?
PJ
Reply | Forward
#185
From: "scottrver"
Date: Sat Jul 20, 2002 10:59 pm
Subject: Re: Target Strength scottrver
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
Hi PJ,
You can find the article on Shannon entropy, which is related to this
topic, at James Spottiswoode's site.
(b) that perhaps human consciousness
> vested in a given target could affect the strength at which it
affected viewers.
>
> For example, (b) would suggest that maybe the great pyramid and
eiffel tower
> might be strong targets because millions (if not billions) of people
have gazed
> on them and focused on them and photographed them -- than perhaps the
> same general shape or size standing in a field in a kansas, or somewhat
> unknown in the midst of a mountain range.
Of course Ingo RVed features of other planets never before seen by man.
Scott
------------------------
Moderator's note: Hi Scott. Appreciate the ref, but Shannon Entropy in the RV
context does not relate to the human consciousness invested in a target in any
way. It relates basically to the rate of change within a target. (I only know
this because I have hashed through it with Dr. May who wrote the paper.) Ingo's
Jupiter stuff is great. I didn't mean to suggest (if that's what prompted the
2nd ref) that anybody had to witness something for it to be RVd (that's the
telepathy assumption which has been proven wrong). I just meant that I wonder
if some targets, somehow, "have more data to obtain", or certain elements have
some... stronger energy... somehow. I don't know what I'm saying in detail as
it's a question, not an answer. :-) -- PJ
|