Cosmic Spoon - ramblings of a modern day psychic

Friday, June 09, 2006

smoke, mirrors and future remote viewing

Just though I’d share some thoughts on the process of remote viewing, how AOL's form and why - and the processes in the mind involved in this and some thought on how to better use viewers in future projects.

Firstly Ingo Swann has already mentioned mirror neurones in an article on his site - as for six months now I have been reading up and studying these fascinating little 'genius' cells. I’m now convinced they hold part of the puzzle why RV works. For a great background on AOL's and why feedback is paramount to the learning process for the viewer you need to read this article by Ingo Swann.

Mirror neurons, AOL's and Remote Viewing

After reading Ingo’s fantastic article (here) and my recent thoughts on Mirror neurons I clearly now see how Analytical overlays form and more importantly why. When presented with data that doesn’t fit a memory template the mind grabs the next best thing in the absence of ‘stored mean memories’. This is where the problems start as the next best set of memories that fit probably has data that doesn’t fit the target 100%. Reading Ingo's article it also becomes clear why feedback is so important and also a thorough review of each session and its data, as the feedback is there to build these new memory templates when one is absent.

The processing of the actual target signal I feel is done in the areas of the brain that we now know that contain mirror neurons. When I first read of these magical cells had a feeling of inspiration as they seemed to be the key to what science and I had been looking for.

Mirror neurons take the information that is fed into the brain and they match it with stored experiences and memories this then allows the body to respond to the data - if you see someone hit their head, you wince as the mirror neurones fire a memory that you have of hitting your head - so you create an empathic moment - this is what I feel happens with remote viewing.

The ability to share the emotions and experiences of others appears to be intimately linked to how mirror neurons function. I feel its here that the AOL’s form when stored memories are absent, the mind grabs and presents the next best set of stored memories that fits the target. These memories are generally a close match but not an exact fit - just as AOL's appear to us when viewing!

Somehow and probably due to a holographic interaction of the universe (the debate is still open on this one) we are able to access any target, anywhere. This through the ages has been called many things more commonly termed psychic. When we calm our bodies and centre our intention I feel this allows us to quiet the noise just long enough to receive small bits of information from the target. These I feel are then analysed within the areas of mirror neurons for matches to memory templates the person has generated and stored over their years.

In a recent UCL study (December 2004 online edition of Cerebral Cortex), dancers from London's Royal Ballet and experts in capoeira, a Brazilian martial arts form, were asked to watch short videos of either ballet or capoeira dancers performing brief dance moves. While watching the videos, the dancers were lying perfectly still in an MRI scanner. The researchers found that areas of the brain collectively known as the "mirror neurone system" showed more activity when a dancer saw movements he had been trained to perform than when he observed movements he hadn't been trained to perform. (All the dancers in the study were male.) The mirror system in the non-dancers showed appreciably less activity while watching the videos than either of the dancers' mirror systems.

This seems clear to me and is the first proof that the things we have experienced and learned, affects the way our brain responds and that this is also true when we receive RV data.

When data is picked up in the signal from the target, such as - walking - we automatically simulate the action in our own brain". We recognise the action because you have in your brain a template for that action based on our own experience and memories.

It seems from the current research that mirror neurones are much, much more that the other nerve cells in the brain. Mirror neurons seem to be able to analyse data as it comes in and predict an outcome based of course on stored memory templates. I have myself felt this work in the real world.

I was trained in full contact Karate so when I see people fighting I feel myself anticipating the moves and my body twitch ready to make the next move in response to the visual stimuli. If I hadn’t been trained in Karate then I wouldn’t have the memory templates to do this. My memory templates predict an outcome based on what I’m seeing and tell my body to move.

Mirror neurons seem to analyze scenes and to read minds. If you see someone reach toward a bookshelf and his hand is out of sight, you have little doubt that he is going to pick up a book because your mirror neurons tell you so based on their acquired experience.

What this all seems to tell me is that yes the feedback process is absolute and paramount to the RV learning process, but I now feel that maybe for us to develop Remote viewing moving forward then remote viewers should have very serious experience and memory templates for the required targets.

For example it’s going to be very hard to use a remote viewer who knows nothing about dead bodies in possible missing person/dead targets. The smells, decay, and so forth in targets that involve dead/missing people as the memory templates just aren’t there in the viewer’s brain for them to be optimal. Hence if the memory template isn’t there then the next best template is grabbed at causing the noise to increase and AOL's to generate.

Of course I understand that we all hope RV will allow us to overcome some of the problems and dispel any analytical overlays, but in reality I feel the future would be best served with specifically aimed and trained people viewing targets that fit their mirror neuron memory templates to achieve the best results.

We know and have seen this in effect for years and I myself have seen that when given targets that I have actually been to and experienced - have memories of - then I generally nail the targets flat!

Anyway I just wanted to share some ideas and yes feedback will help build new memory templates - but pictorial or insufficient feedback probably wont and will over time probably not really help in the RV learning process as the feedback would be better served if sensory and substantive.

What would be best for RV to generate the best results is to learn and know as much as possible and every target to feedback in as much detail as possible to increase the memory template - just as Ingo observed in the excellent article with Hella Hammid in the 70's and the teapot/ nuclear station. Once she learned thru having sufficient feedback - the memory template was stored.

anyway as I said, just some thoughts.


  • Interesting thoughts daz.

    It's long been considered a 'given' that---despite his viewing skill across the board---one reason why even in his 'early days' in viewing (when he certainly didn't view like he can now), when McMoneagle got the soviet typhoon sub, that maybe a reason he did so well was because first, his expertise was technology and second, he'd spent nearly two years studying shipbuilding and design.

    He's written in previous years about how the mind basically grabs whatever real memory it has that 'best matches', the same thing Ingo said, the same thing these mirror neurons articles say, and although it's not 100% considered proven by science, I agree with you that experientially, this holds SO TRUE that any viewer is likely to feel they've stumbled on the obvious key with this.

    Long ago before I'd heard Joe's stuff about the experiential database the mind uses for this, I had a bit of a diff take that amounted to the same thing I see, I called it 'local replication' (of the non-local data). When this came up it was in a conversation where I was saying most psychic arts use a 'witness' that 'takes on' the replication, tarot for example, but RV uses only the mind (or ideograms) to locally "replicate" the 'pattern' of the nonlocal energy, so the mind had to be able to DO that replication which must require certain things be present in the mind.

    It seems like physical experience is way stronger than just-visual as far as what makes an impression. And just-visual stronger if in person than by picture. Otherwise, anybody who ever created their own target pool or saw pics of stuff (and when have we NOT sometime in our life seen a pic of something we've viewed or at least something similar?) would have a perfect session. It seems like there's more that "imprints" it into us when we really experience something vs. just seeing it. But I also suspect that some people (McMoneagle is a good example of this in fact) are simply so "here now present aware" in their ordinary life that for them, if they walk to the store and back, they may imprint everything they experienced somehow more 'deeply' than the average person living half outta body and 20 minutes into the future might. This might mean that simple 'awareness' could result--if not then, then later in life--in way better viewers, simply because their memory database is so much vaster.

    It's cool but strange this is coming up now because I remember talking some years ago about how exposing viewers to the topics of their targets would surely make them so much better---not to kill the doubleblind but to make sure if they're targeting mechanical tech that they be mechanically inclined and experienced. For some reason this never went anywhere as an idea.

    Later this guy named Larry Wojo (as we called him on TKR) had a variant on that idea and he had this experiment on his site where he'd do like an 'edu' type thing on a certain subject and then he'd do a target that was something in that topic. I only heard the ad-hoc reports but some felt they did better on the sessions as a result (some might argue the true doubleblind on this, but I suppose that isn't too big a sitch if you don't have info on the focus; the main sitch seems to be knowing if someone seems on target if it's db and you can compare to tasking context, an option you don't have when you hand them the 'nature' of it as frontloading).

    Lawrence and I have been talking a lot about this topic of late (I wish the public boards had the conversation private email does). For example, say we get a target and we get certain symbols that are not-quite-matches. Questions come to mind like:

    1. If I know I have an experiential match for all the dominant things in that target, why didn't THEY come up vs. either not coming or something else coming or some kind of more symbolic stuff?

    2. Why does one come up vs. another?

    I wonder, is it possible that obscure physical things are blocking or making one 'pathway' easier than others. Could even simple stuff like dehydration or sitting on too hard a chair or having sluggish lymphatics under your right arm or something offbeat like this, make it less likely that we access a given memory (as memory is likely stored body-wide in the nervous system, not just the brain).

    I think sometimes when I get symbolic info, it might actually add food for thought on the 'why do we get what we get' question.

    For example recently (and I should not use any recent example since my viewing has sucked recently!) I had a target where one of the key components of the target was a dirt path. It was surrounded on each side by high thick bushes, and their shadows on the ground. The pic was daytime sunny, not spooky, yet I would not be overly comfortable walking through that corridor.

    My session was useless, but here's a real example. The first data I got was a brief dynamic visual (those are always symbolic), a split second, of a squatting catcher guy (back to me) and another guy coming literally through his legs sliding in the dirt to the base. My perspective was probably from like 3" above the ground, looking straight and the reaching hands of the guy sliding into the base, that I didn't see but would have been about 12" in front of me.

    OK, the literal match was "a dirt path." Baseline much like the pic. Also, the shadows of the bushes along the path, because there were people in the brief visual, there were shadows cast on the dirt path in the symbol as well.

    As a symbol, though, the sense was 'hurrying down it' and something 'reaching for him' and him reaching for 'safe' (I even had the sense of the call 'safe!' as he came through). So I felt as if my personal aesthetic and emotional response must have added to the data.

    What I'm trying to say is that the information the target has is one thing; the information we have or associate is another thing; and combined, we have a third thing. And maybe it is always that way, for anybody, maybe there is really no way to separate ourselves from ourselves, but rather a matter of figuring out ourselves and how we react to things, respond to things, etc.

    Now that third thing -- the 'jungian stew' (as I call our universe) of that conglomerate, seems to be what goes for a memory matchup. But it seems that ALL the information is involved. So for example, the fact that this path would make me personally feel a little spooked and enclosed and hurry to get through it (to safety, subconsciously), isn't part of the target, but becomes part of the "calling inquiry" made to our database of experience.

    So my life has a bazillion variants on 'dirt paths' it could have shown me, including several in-person experiences that would be barely different from the literal target (which makes it so aggravating I didn't just SEE any of them that would have led to a perfect session!). Yet it chose the one that included the dirt path, shadows on it, a sense of tension, a sense of something "reaching in" for the person moving down it (another viewer on the target got the data 'tentacles'--the branches and the shadows did have a slight sense of that shape), a sense of the person trying to get down it fast and trying to get to safety at the end of it.

    The result seems to be that internally, I got "exactly what I asked for but not what I wanted."

    The effect on the session was hideous as you might imagine. I knew it was symbol and could have spent 10 minutes picking apart major physicals, relationships and concepts in that half-second mini-movie, with zero clue what of that might be the thing(s) that relate to the target. It could have been a game or competition concept or humans or uniforms or... god only knows, right? That kind of symbolic data is useless, it's more harm than help in a session *unless* there is enough target contact to "sense" "what part matters" of something, or that it's showing me X but I think the point is Y.

    So in addition to wanting personal experience in our biological database, that alone clearly isn't enough. I can't number the amount of dirt paths lined by bushes I have encountered in my life. That's all the target was. So WTF is the problem with getting the literal data? If there was ANY contact which I think there was personally, then there is no obvious reason why I simply couldn't get data that matched. Except:

    To us, data that matches is "dirt path with bushes on each side." But maybe to our subconscious, the feelings invoked by the target are just as 'valid as aspects of the target' as physical stuff. (And who knows why we respond as we do?--some of those responses could be beased on feelings people have had at the literal target, that are coming through as part of it; I don't know that an aesthetic response is solely based on our visual interp of a target, there could be target info that helps spark it in us.)

    Maybe to my subconscious, some of the emo or aesth info was just as much part of the search criteria as 'dirt path' and 'bushes'. But I had no choice about whether to include it, it didn't go by me, and it may or may not even have been wholly of me, vs. the target.

    So might it be a strong emphasis that we ONLY WANT basic physical data in the earlier part of sessions that helps give it to us, as the methods approach has geared it all along? Would our field's situation of "failing to adequately recognize symbolic info" be a help in stage 2-3 but a major hindrance past that?

    We often think of symbolic and allegorical as data that only conceptually relates, while most data is expected to be literal data that, if it doesn't quite perfectly match, is because our memory database doesn't perfectly match. But is it possible that what we are calling 'symbolic data' is no more "symbolic" than data which is an "almost but not quite match"?

    Could it be that we have a sliding scale of perception and because we haven't made the connection of their sameness, it has prevented us from some insight into either of them?

    By Blogger PJ, at 9:07 PM  

  • I don't think I well articulated half what I wanted to say. Apparently I need to work more of it out in my head. I think you are on the right track totally. I think there is more info that we could work through experientially and otherwise that would add to an overall understanding, the point being to get to 'how to make it' (better, more predictable, whatever).

    By Blogger PJ, at 9:22 PM  

  • Red, as always thanx for the great and very thought provoking comments.

    I feel that if we start to really feedback on targets over say a two year period - then the accumalation of versy solid 'memory teplates' can only but enhance the viewing overall.

    Targets with feedback as image, video and text would be good for this - we probably just need to work on the targeting of viewers with a ilttel more detail to really improve how viewers develop.



    By Blogger Daz, at 2:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home