| |
Discussions on Remote
Viewing
by Jimmy Williams
These articles first
appeared in On Target, the HRVG newsletter edited by Dick Allgire, between
2001-2002
Part I
This
is the first in a series of articles that is meant to promote dialog about the
nature of remote viewing by comparing it to works by authors that seem pertinent
to the discussion but in particular to the experimental work in telepathy done
by French chemical engineer Rene’ Warcollier in the early decades of the
twentieth century.
Monsieur Warcollier was unique in that he didn't try to prove telepathy to
skeptics. He concerned himself with conducting experiments and recording the
results. His belief was that until the phenomena could be produced at will, it
wouldn't be given scientific status.
Warcollier’s book, Experiments in Telepathy, published in 1938, is a
treasure trove of information about psychic functioning. The telepathy he sought
to describe strongly parallels what we call remote viewing. There are some key
differences between the telepathic experiments carried out or reported by
Monsieur Warcollier and remote viewing as generally practiced.
The first difference is that with telepathy, there is assumed to be a sender and
a receiver. (This loosely equates to the relationship between the targeteer and
viewers in remote viewing, which I explain below.)
The second difference is the notion that telepathic communication is dependent
on simultaneity. This was not stated explicitly, but was implied by the
structure of the experiments. This basically assumes that in order to succeed,
the participants must be actively engaged in sending and receiving information.
In remote viewing there is no active sender. Instead the subject to be viewed is
given a unique coded designator called a target ID which is a set of random
numbers and/or letters such as 2637-8927 or ABCD-EFGH. The target ID is
associated to the subject through an act of focused attention. The person who
carries out this activity is specially trained and is called a targeteer.
The remote viewer only gets the target ID, frequently has no contact with the
targeteer and does not do the viewing while the targeteer is preparing the
target. Therefore, simultaneity is not a factor in a remote viewing session.
There is a unique case called "outbound remote viewing" or
"beaconing" which is similar to telepathy, in that there is an active
sender, but this represents a very small percentage of the remote viewing being
done.
I found it most interesting that despite his assumptions about the nature of
telepathy, Monsieur Warcollier’s results were entirely familiar to me as a
trained remote viewer.
Prior to my exposure to Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity and other
quantum physical theories, my world view would have dictated unquestioning
agreement with Monsieur Warcollier’s prejudices for the importance of time and
causality. His unconscious assumptions are right for his time and show up in the
way he crafted the protocols of his psychic experiments.
Chapter 1
Warcollier
describes psychic imagery as converging on the percipient from memory and being
organized in visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, and kinesthetic
categories.
Does this sound familiar? It is the very same organization, in the same order,
that we use in stage two of remote viewing. You can see examples of this in the
many sessions posted on the Hawaii Remote Viewer’s Guild (HRVG) web site. Is
this a natural pattern, a coincidence, or could it be that the authors of early
remote viewing protocols were familiar with Warcollier’s work?
In the experiments carried out by Warcollier and his colleagues, the imagery
received were mostly hand drawn impressions of “visual” data. The primary
nature of the visual senses represented in the work is remarkable in that some
modern remote viewing techniques suppress "viewing" in the early
stages of their protocol structure.
Let's
look at some of the specific problems that come about when trying to perceive
visual data. In their telepathic experiments, many of the images transmitted
contained color. In this regard Warcollier writes: “We cannot know how color
is transmitted, but the important thing is that color is transmitted,
independently of form. Some subjects never perceive colors in telepathic images;
others, like myself, perceive colors as well as form. With the latter, color may
be transmitted well, but in connection with a mistaken image. For instance, in
the case of a fish of a certain shade of red, the exact shade may get through in
association with a billiard ball of the same color, although the image of the
red fish may be transmitted in the form of a white fish of another species.”
The data can all be there, but the faculty of the analytical mind is missing.
The discernment of normal thought is missing. The mind is communicating the
essential gestalts, but it filters out the meaning while transmitting
fundamental data like color and form.
Warcollier says that data converge on the percipient from strata of memory.
Robert Ornstein, the author of The Evolution of Consciousness, The Origins of
the Way We Think, cites experiments by Frederic Bartlett in 1932 that
destroy the idea of the accuracy of what we think of as normal memory: “He
noticed that people’s recall of figures and events was not accurate. He
realized that the transformations memory performed on elements generally altered
them to be more like the previous experiences of the person recalling them.”
The basic idea is that your mind assembles data on the fly according to a
predetermined mental framework or paradigm one is operating in. (This sounds
very much like the concept of "framing" from Neuro-Linguistic
Programming.)
Ornstein goes on to say: “…Bartlett
developed the notion of schema – a mental template into which we fit our
experiences. Investigators of the memory schema have discovered several types of
distortions in recall. Memory is selective - information not in the currently
active schema cannot be recalled; it is interpretive - the active schema leads
to supposition about the meaning of events, and it is integrative – different
ideas and events are combined into one schema and can no longer be processed
separately.” On the simplest level, the integrative-interpretive aspect of
thought is what we recognize in the proper association of the color (red) and
form (fish) in Warcollier’s example, but it also shows up in curious illogical
associations like a red fish colored billiard ball and a white fish of similar
form. Each is a legitimate association, but the second example lacks context.
Natural evolutionary pressures designed the mind. It was never meant to be an
accurate catalogue of the outside world inside one's head. It evolved to
accomplish the task of finding food, avoiding pain and reproducing. These are
the baseline schemas of the mind.
Schema can be very much more complex, but all data processing is organized to
make efficient use of the enormous amounts of data that our environment is
bombarding us with. Data is assembled from the senses in real time and from
memory according to schema. The schema give meaning to the data and filter out
anything that is extraneous. Processing information correctly and efficiently
meant staying alive and it has been wonderfully successful.
Getting back to telepathic or remote viewed data, there is no predetermined
“schema” to operate from. There is no meaning to organize the data. This is
what is known as blind or double blind remote viewing and it is the standard
method of conducting a remote viewing session. The data organizing principle of
the mind is therefore negated by the protocols of remote viewing (or the
experimental restrictions of telepathy).
Because the schema is lacking, the data that is received has to fall back on
simple, associative memory rather than integrative-interpretive memory. As in
Warcollier’s example above, the red of the fish associates with the red of a
billiard ball because it doesn't have access to the direct sensory framework
provided by the eyes sending signals to the mind, which say Red Fish. Neither
can it rely on memory organized in the form of earlier similar events having
similar schema.
This is why people who claim to remote view, but know the nature of the subject
ahead of time (i.e. "front loaded"), are not really working in the
same arena at all. When front loaded, a whole different aspect of mind is
interpreting and integrating data. Remote viewing relies on pure associative
data in the beginning stages. It is ill advised to refer to both front loaded
and blind remote viewing with the same label because of the significant
differences in mental processing.
There is a term used by remote viewers called “Analytical Overlay”(AOL). It
is the activity of the mind slipping in to integrative-interpretive mode. This
is when one assembles reasonable imaginary contexts for incompletely perceived
remote viewing data.
The trick is to maintain associative mental processing. If successful in
avoiding AOL, the data collected in the remote viewing session eventually
accretes in meaningful ways through the agency of the data collection matrix
created by the remote viewing protocols.
This is crucial to understanding the activity of the mind while remote viewing.
It takes training and discipline to suspend the normal tendency of the mind to
integrate and interpret. Strict adherence to remote viewing protocols ensure
that one is in the proper state of mind and that data is collected in a standard
methodology that allows meaning to be reconstituted through data analysis.
Part II
Why
is it that the subconscious mind is able to transfer basic gestaltic information
by means that are seemingly beyond the capability of our physical senses, when
the conscious mind cannot? Does the conscious mind also accesses a-causal,
spatially distant, and time-displaced information?
Before we can seriously approach this question we have to understand the working
principles of the conscious mind. Some of this was touched on in the previous
chapter. The waking mind is active. It is constantly comparing data from the
world of the senses and data from memory against an organizing scheme of some
kind. This central construct is the person’s best guess of how the world
works.
This central organizing principle usually is a multifaceted, loose confederation
of mental constructs, with each part having a unique characteristic and each
taking turns being dominant in order to adapt to changing survival pressures.
Different world views or Me’s take turns to fulfill the appropriate survival
needs of the moment.
One Me takes charge in serious business environments, while another takes over
during intimate loving relationships. Sometimes a monolithic Me takes over,
refuses to leave center stage and acts the same way no matter the situation.
This can seem neurotic in inappropriate circumstances.
Whether multifaceted, monolithic or somewhere in between, the point is that data
converges on a central framework and can only be evaluated in terms of it. This
is a highly successful way of processing the world and is probably responsible
for the primacy of Homo sapiens.
We are incredibly adaptable creatures. As Robert Ornstein says in The
Evolution of Consciousness, The Origins of the Way We Think, “Because of
the great malleability of the brain, human beings are as successful a species as
we are because we can occupy a wide range of niches. Other animals have died out
because of their lack of adaptability.” We are like the tiger that can change
his stripes. We change our central brain operating system in response to
survival needs. Through a combination of nature and nurture, we build mental
frameworks that are appropriate to our environment.
What happens to data that doesn’t fit the framework? Usually it is totally
ignored, but sometimes it floats to the surface as intuition. Sometimes the
importance of the information is so important to the survival of the person that
they are compelled to act without reason, as if they had lost their mind. Take
for instance the person that has a bad premonition and decides not to board an
airplane that latter crashes. Some major organizing paradigms of that person’s
world had to be shoved aside to act on those gut feelings.
“People that are not flexible and adaptable in their mental framing
strategies can find remote viewing downright destabilizing.”
The remote viewer is trained to short-circuit this central organizing matrix by
moving fast and not evaluating the data as it is received. The completely
unknown nature of the target prevents the selection of an organizing scheme for
the data. The scheme is transferred to the remote viewing protocols.
The very activity of suspending their comfortable filter of the world can be
very disturbing. People that are not flexible and adaptable in their mental
framing strategies can find remote viewing downright destabilizing. Personal
filters that were previously taken for granted or invisible are now switched off
through the application of the remote viewing protocols. What was previously
thought of as an immovable feature of their psychic landscape is now shown to be
controllable by an act of will. One no longer has plausible deniability when it
comes to taking responsibility for the strange features of one’s mind. It is a
constant battle to refrain from judging the data you receive from the world
through your filters. This is where analytical overlay comes from. It can take
hundreds of remote viewing sessions before a person actually gets comfortable
and can process information in this way. Some are never able to handle the
stress to their mental framework, and have to quit.
Lets get back to the original question I posed at the beginning of this chapter.
I think the reason why we generally don’t perceive a-causal, spatially
distant, and time-displaced information is because of the wildly successful
nature of our conventional mental processes. It isn’t that we can’t perceive
signals of this type. Ninety-nine percent of the time, these subtle messages
just don’t matter. We are conditioned by success to not pay them much
attention.
You are much more interested and successful in finding food, a mate, and
avoiding pain using the conventional mind operating system. It’s like
Microsoft® Windows®. MSDOS is still there, but most people don’t need it and
don’t care.
From time to time something comes through such as intuition, precognition or the
hair rising on the back of your neck that bypasses the normal system. Our
tendency is to immediately interpret this strange information in terms of what
we can sense or remember. We run it through the ringer of our analytical mind.
Is it any wonder we have problems with analytical overlay in remote viewing?
So, does your conscious mind receive a-causal, spatially distant, and
time-displaced information? You betcha; but there is an 800 pound gorilla called
the analytical mind that is sitting in your lap. Guess who gets all the
attention?
I tell my remote viewing students that this is the monkey mind. There is a
chattering monkey sitting on your shoulder always interrupting the subtle
reception of remote data with constant analyzing and framing of the data. You
have to turn off the monkey mind to be successful.
Now that we have some basic idea of how the mental machinery operates, let’s
take a look at how we perceive and process remote viewing data. Chapter three of
Rene’ Warcollier’s book Experiments in Telepathy, is titled “What
is Transmitted”. I previously touched on some of this when I brought up the
subject of color (the red fish and the billiard ball).
In speaking of the strange way that data associates, Warcollier states: “This
anomaly of transmission is of value to us because it shows in the most
indisputable way that, in telepathic reception at least, the cerebral neurons
play a part like that of the keyboard of a piano during the performance of a
piece of music. The keys seem to be moved, as it were, from outside, whereas in
our habitual perception they are moved from within, like the keys of a
mechanical player-piano.”
We have a program that organizes data, which equates to the scroll of the player
piano. Remove the program and what you get is strange juxtapositions of data.
Normal associative thought processes would cause memory images to accrete to the
imagery of the target. The imagery associations do not necessarily combine in a
reasonable relationship to one another. Color, form or idea can recombine in
metaphoric or mixed up ways. As if an infant were drawing the picture (or
playing the piano).
We have seen how color and form can cross associate. Ideas alone can show up as
form as well. Here are a few cases sited in Warcollier’s book:
1) May, 1926. The agent, in one room, repeated in a low voice, “To be or not
to be.” The percipient. R.W., in another room, thought of a cross in a
graveyard.
2) Same day, same conditions. The agent thought of the river Seine as seen from
the top of the Eiffel Tower. The percipient thought of isothermic lines on a map
of the world and a city map.
3) Same conditions. The agent, Captain B., wrote and pronounced in a low voice,
“Honor and country.” The percipient, R.W., thought of a French flag blowing
in the wind, with a golden star above it, but did not catch the meaning of the
image.
In the first example, the idea comes across symbolically as a cross in a
graveyard. In the second, the agent (targeteer for you remote viewers) was
working from memory. The result was visual impressions rendered in the form of
maps. The last was highly metaphoric. All of the above results were essentially
visual in nature. Our primary sense is visual. Is it any wonder that complex
ideas are rendered in visual format?
In a later chapter Warcollier says: “In fact, telepathy almost never manifests
itself to the percipient (viewer) by a sense-image or a meaning-image of the
agent (targeteer). It seems that the memory or sense images disintegrate into
their component elements; and it is from these elements, reviewed by the
percipient that the creative imagination reconstructs, as well as it can, the
perception or the memory image of the agent”.
In the telepathy experiments the percipient had to grab all the data and render
it in one try. In remote viewing, we can minimize the effects of memory by
slowly collecting data in a well-organized manner. Meaning develops in the later
stages and any realization about meaning is postponed for as long as possible so
as not to interfere with the data collection process.
In a remote viewing session bits of data appear but are not assigned meaning by
the viewer. This is like an impressionist painting composed of dots. It is
futile to assign meaning to individual dots or to try to draw the picture from a
small percentage of those collected.
It is only after completing the tapestry of data that one can stand back and try
to reassemble the meaning from the collected work. Patience is a virtue.
Part III
We
now have some idea of the mental framework that is operating when we attempt to
remote view. What other factors come in to play? We are marvelous receivers and
processors of information, however, the ability to perceive things that are
outside the range of our normal sense organs is very weak in most people. So
weak in fact, that many people believe that perception other than through normal
channels is at best a fantasy and at worst, mental illness.
It is tempting to become metaphysical when discussing remote viewing and other
psychic phenomena. I think the ultimate answers are beyond the reach of this
article, so I will stick to ideas that are known to science or can reasonably be
associated with known principles.
A weak signal can be detected providing the surrounding noise is sufficiently
low. This is what is known as the signal to noise ratio. If there is little
difference between a signal and the surrounding noise, little information is
present. The ultimate example of this is the high contrast between the hot
bright point of a star and the cold vastness of space. In between these two is
all the information there is: all planets, all life, all that we know and
perceive. This is an example of very high information density.
Our perceptual apparatus is hard wired to receive visual, auditory, gustatory
and tactile data. It is like a television that is capable of receiving a broad
spectrum of information. The receiver itself, apart from the input array, is
still a receiver. If you were to pull the tuner out of a television, you would
still get a snowy picture. An occasional station may bleed through on the audio
or you might see an occasional glimpse of a picture, but the high noise to
signal ratio will prevent your accustomed level of reception.
Your receiver, the wet-ware between your ears is capable of receiving even
without the normal data feed from your senses. This is not a normal mode of
operation. If you were to backward engineer a television so that you would get
interesting pictures on the screen in response to AM radio stations, you would
have interesting patterns that do not fit your normal scheme of understanding.
Weird associations between the tempo of a song and the visual cues on the screen
might occur. These are weak signals, disassociated from the normal scheme that
you expect from a television.
The same is true of remote viewing. Remote viewing protocols are the substitute
tuner you use in place of the normal sensory array. You co-opt the usual sensory
pathways and cue (tune) the receiver to a band your receiver does not normally
pick up.
When these weak signals hit your signal processor, they lack the normal
contextual framework. The information is mixed up, incorrectly associated,
metaphorical or only partially perceived. Placing this information in the
overlaid framework of remote viewing protocols allows you to reassemble data in
a meaningful fashion.
Retraining yourself to operate in this environment takes a lot of work. It is as
hard as learning any difficult new skill.
We have discussed the mental framework. We have a working idea of how things are
wired up. Now lets talk about what facilitates our ability to perceive the
intended target. This is probably the most speculative and least understood area
of remote viewing. How do we select a coherent and intended set of information
out of all the possibilities?
First I will offer an expert’s opinion. After much experimentation, Rene
Warcollier offers the following explanation under a heading entitled The
Hypothesis of Psychic Charges:
The influence of the agent’s glance may have two interpretations. Telepathic
phenomena happen as if the percipient were looking with the agent’s eyes. But
this does not explain why the percipient often sees the drawings as if he were
behind them, that is to say, as if they were reversed. It may be then, that
looking at an object gives it a psychic charge, perceptible to the percipient.
Note: This reversal may also be confused with the effects of dyslexia.
(author)
Continuing:
It is only reasonable, if we admit, with Bergson, that perception is exercised
upon the object itself. In Matiere et Moemoire he writes,” External objects
are perceived by me where they are, themselves, not in me.” In so far as this
concerns the hypothesis of psychic charges, it seems to me necessary to add that
it is the first perception of an object that can be perceived as of itself, the
subsequent perceptions for the most part continuations of our memory.
If that is so, A percipient in a state of clairvoyance might, then, have a
particular attraction toward an object which had been recently seen by the
agent, rather than toward another which had not been seen.
“Remote viewing protocols are the substitute tuner you use in place of the
normal sensory array. You co-opt the usual sensory pathways and cue (tune) the
receiver to a band your receiver does not normally pick up.”
Here Warcollier attempts to frame in words a phenomenon that he and others
repeatedly observed. It is a hypothesis. I can add that we have observed a
similar phenomenon in remote viewing. No one is claiming that this psychic
charge is a measurable force, detectible by instrumentation. It is merely a
convenient description that helps us to talk about an observed experimental
effect that we don’t understand yet.
In the simplest terms, we can say that there is an interaction between the
perceiver and that, which is perceived. There is compelling evidence from
quantum physics that the only time quanta (sub-atomic particles) ever manifest
as particles is when we are looking at them! Disturbed by the idea that there
was a quantum soup that only came in to form when you had your eyes open,
physicist David Bohm postulated that particles do exist in the absence of an
observer and this could be explained by a new field he called the quantum
potential, and like gravity it pervaded all space. However, unlike gravitational
fields, magnetic fields and so on, its influence did not diminish with distance.
Its effects were subtle, but it was equally powerful everywhere. (from: Michael
Talbot’s The Holographic Universe.}
The effects reported by Warcollier and those we are seeing in remote viewing are
plainly accounted for and have some basis in physics. I don’t presume to be
able to explain it all. All I am saying is that some very high-powered
scientific theories seem to parallel the phenomena we are reporting.
In Warcollier’s example above, he notes that, “every object observed for the
first time by me can reflect me as I reflect it, at least for a certain time. It
has a certain psychic charge from me, and it also retains the impression that I
have of it, just as I have a memory of the object.” Focused attention on
anything causes the subject and object to be identified with each other in some
way. There is an entanglement of the observer and the observed. In this way, a
targeteer associates a subject to be remote viewed with the cryptic identifier
the remote viewer will use to retrieve target imagery.
Warcollier goes on to say, “it is the first perception of an object that can
be perceived as of itself, the subsequent perceptions for the most part
continuations of our memory.” I think this is an important statement. It
illustrates the principle of resonance. At first encounter with the target, the
very first incident wave of attention by the targeteer with the target is pure.
As one lingers, ones own memory associations begin to create interference
patterns with the original event.
A similar effect happens from the perspective of the viewer. As a viewer lingers
on target imagery, there is an increasing chance that subsequent information
will be colored by interference of the viewer’s creation. I think this equates
to simple contamination and not what is commonly termed analytical overlay
(AOL).
Finally, it is important to be in a good frame of mind when remote viewing. Rene
Warcollier says,” It is necessary for the percipient to be in good spirits,
free of cares and even of conscious thought.” He also says that faith in the
existence of telepathy is helpful but it is not necessary in the person that is
sending the message.
You have to be ready, willing and able to communicate. The role of targeteer
simply requires a clear understanding of what is to be perceived. No particular
will power is required. It is the viewer’s job to extract accurate
unembellished data. Hopefully this article will give you a clearer knowledge of
how things work, and a faith that one can succeed.
Part IV
For
me, the most interesting aspect of remote viewing is what it says about how the
world works. I don’t practice this skill because I want to be a psychic
voyeur. RV demonstrates just how inadequate the conventional view of the world
is. It challenges one’s imagination to come up with a personal consciousness
that can encompass the facts. RV forces a break with the conventional
understanding of reality. It demonstrates that space and time aren’t barriers
to the human consciousness’ access to information.
Very sophisticated explanations exist from ancient times that provide a
plausible framework for us to understand these phenomena. Modern mathematicians
and theoretical physicists have also done much to help grasp our world.
Humanity is slow to embrace revolutionary new ideas, especially when the
existing paradigm is adequate for daily existence.
Remote viewing challenges our worldview. Linear cause and effect relationships
break down. Remote viewing lends a new twist to the term “out of sight, out of
mind”. Space and time are no longer universally applicable as benchmarks for
reality. How then, do we need to change our concepts of space and time to
accommodate the fact that remote viewing occurs?
We obviously need an organizing principle that fits the facts. For starters
let’s try to re-spatialize our viewpoint of time and space.
Think of a basketball with thumbtacks stuck all over its surface. Think of
yourself as one of those thumbtacks. Being a lowly inhabitant of basketball
world, you can only relate to adjacent thumbtacks that are within your field of
view and only along an arc on the surface. All the processing of information in
your basketball/thumbtack world is conditioned by the geometry of the surface.
As you move from thumbtack to thumbtack you evolve a slightly more sophisticated
worldview based on the curved plane of the surface. You evolve an understanding
of your world as a series of linear sequential relationships.
Now take a God’s eye view of it all. Leave the surface of the ball. Notice
that the individual thumbtacks are really part of a higher geometry, a sphere.
Events, bound in a linear-sequential relationship at the surface, are now
simultaneous. Concepts of time and space, which make sense at the surface, are
rendered irrelevant. We have moved from a geometry of arcs to a geometry of
spheres. The earlier worldview isn’t wrong, just inappropriate in the higher
dimensional realm.
If consciousness is a field that is not affected by mass and gravity (except for
when I drop a heavy object on my toe), then it can operate across space and
time. The portion of consciousness that lives in dense matter at the bottom of a
gravity well, i.e. a planetary surface, is constrained by the physics of dense
matter where linear processing of information makes sense.
Modern physics is absolutely brimming over with theories that postulate higher
dimensions. That portion of consciousness that exists in higher geometries
doesn’t have the constraints of space and time, but it doesn’t have the
analytical framework that normal thought does either. This creates quite a
dilemma when one tries to bridge the two environments.
Intuition is a good example of how thought might change in an unconstrained
realm. This kind of information appears as a flash of knowing. Data is instantly
known. There is no “thinking through” the ideas that appear intuitively.
They arrive in complete packets, just as one would perceive the basketball and
all the thumbtacks as a unit.
"Humanity is slow to embrace revolutionary new ideas, especially when
the existing paradigm is adequate for daily existence.”
Normally, information comes from a source (space) and is assembled in some kind
of order (time). Intuitive leaps appear from who knows where and are completely
formed. These are two very different modes of knowing.
When we remote view, we are exchanging information from one order of knowing to
another. The remote viewing protocols are an intermediate device that allows us
to exchange data from one to the other. Here’s another example. Think of
consciousness as existing across a gradient of energy. As things cool, a phase
change that takes place, just as when water suddenly turns to ice at 0 Degrees
Centigrade. The ice in the lake is still part of the lake, yet you can’t swim
in the ice anymore than you can skate on the water. You can’t think non-local,
a-causal thoughts with your analytical mind. It was created in and is
constrained by the neighborhood it lives in.
Electromagnetic wave theories are frequently used in a metaphorical sense to
explain remote viewing phenomena. This is fairly useful as a teaching tool, but
breaks down when pushed too far. I don’t believe that information itself is
constrained by electromagnetic energy. However, in as much as our bodies are
affected by electromagnetic forces, it plays a substantial role in our ability
to perceive. The brain is affected by electromagnetic fields because of its
highly complex electro-chemical nature.
Experiments have been done that entirely isolate remote viewers from the
surrounding electromagnetic environment. They are still able to remote view.
Indeed, it has been shown that viewers are more successful when the sun is
blocked by the mass of the Earth, thereby reducing the noise in the
electromagnetic spectrum. To me, this indicates that electromagnetism is a
hindrance rather than an essential medium.
So, if information isn’t electromagnetic, where is it and how is it obtained?
Where is meaning? If one looks at a form: a house, a car, a plant, where is the
information that tells you what this is? All form, when reduced to essential
elements is a cloud of quantum particles!
The clearest answers come from two seemingly separate sources: the mystical and
shamanistic traditions, and modern physics. They both speak of a level of
reality that is more fundamental than the observed world and out of which
everything flows. The only difference is the mix of metaphor and math that each
uses. The Judaic texts and the Hindu Vedas are heavily coded with mathematical
terms. Our most revered physicists wax poetic and mystical in many of their
writings.
The Hindu Vedas call the ground out of which everything springs “Brahman”.
It is the formless birthplace of all that exists. They believe that
consciousness is more fundamental than matter and that all is an illusion
created by projecting consciousness and veiling off parts of reality to create
the illusion of the world, which they call “Maya”.
The physicists speak of higher dimensional planes in which fundamental forces of
nature are unified and they speak of the tenuous and uncertain nature of quantum
particles, their own version of “Maya”. Judaic concepts are familiar to
almost everyone in the form of the book of Genesis in which the world is created
from the void.
Hawaiian spirituality speaks of the world being formed in a higher realm by an
aspect of our self, called the “aumakua”. Thoughts and desires that are
clearly communicated to this level of reality achieve form in the mundane world.
The Australian aborigines have a similar view of the world in their belief in
the “dreamtime”. The similarities go on and on.
So, this is a quest for better understanding of the world. If we listen very
carefully to our greatest teachers, we may have a few intuitive leaps of our own
that will improve our remote viewing techniques. As I said in the beginning,
I’m not practicing remote viewing to become a better psychic voyeur. But,
who’s to say I can’t have a little fun as I learn?
Part V
The recently concluded RV conference
was a great inspiration. I was especially struck by Dr. Edgar Mitchell’s
presentation of ground breaking new scientific research, which validates the
quantum and holographic nature of macroscopic reality.
I am going to attempt to bring my rudimentary (and possibly flawed)
understanding of the main points of his talk into the context of the earlier
chapters I have written on the subject of remote viewing.
I want to apologize in advance to Dr. Mitchell and the researchers involved if I
am crude or wrong. I am going on my recollection and limited understanding of
the materials that were presented at the remote viewing conference Saturday
evening, June sixteenth in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Prior to Dr. Mitchell’s talk we were treated to the always informative and
inspiring words of Dr. Russell Targ. One story Dr. Targ presented was that of
the experiments done on the quantum phase entanglement of photons carried out in
Switzerland. The experiments involved the emission of a pair of photons from a
source, which were sent in opposite directions. At an approximate distance of
ten kilometers, one of the photons was passed through a polarizer, which changed
its phase. At the same instant, its twin photon, which had been sent in the
opposite direction, exhibited the same phase change effect.
This experiment was groundbreaking in that it demonstrated the non-local aspect
of quantum particles which were predicted in quantum theory but which were so
weird, that even Dr. Albert Einstein was spooked by the implications.
Dr. Mitchell explained that all molecules exchange quantum particles. The ground
breaking new information is that information, even on a macroscopic level, is
encoded in the phase relationships of quantum emissions. What this implies is
that all forms of matter and energy by the agency of their quantum emissions
have a non-local aspect that identifies them as a unique entity. This non-local
information is carried in the phase nature of quantum particles and may be the
ultimate reason that remote viewing is possible.
Dr. Mitchell went on to say that the information contained in the quantum phase
relationships could be detected and reconstituted. He calls this process
“Phase Conjugate Adaptive Resonance” or PCAR. He testified that some
experiments have already taken place using these new developments in conjunction
with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) technology.
Dr. Mitchell reported that an experimental application of this technology has
been tried and has produced some very curious results. Until further duplication
of the experiment by independent researchers can be done, I am highly cautious
about the reported results, but am passing the story on to you as I remember it
from the conference, simply because it is possibly an important new development
in our understanding of how things work.
According to Dr. Mitchell, experimenters have demonstrated the ability to
extract three-dimensional imagery of a macroscopic subject (in this case a cow)
by scanning a two dimensional image of a wire that had been extracted from its
stomach. Presumably, this demonstrates a holographic-like quality possessed by
material objects. If true, macro scale objects retain some of their
environmental history in the quantum phase encoding of their molecules.
The subject of the experiment was a glass photographic plate obtained in the
purchase of a laboratory previously owned by remote therapy researcher George De
La Warr. It included a highly controversial machine whose development traces its
roots back to Dr. Albert Abrams who was experimenting with a subject called
“Radio Therapy.” Ruth Beymer Drown elaborated on his work. She developed a
machine called the “Homo Vibra Ray Machine,” which stood for “homogeneity
vibration ray” and to which the term “Radionics” was associated. Latter a
machine with of the same genealogy was developed by George De La Warr with which
he conducted many experiments.
According to Dr. Mitchell, the remains of George De La Warr’s laboratory was
purchased more or less intact and included this machine and a collection of
glass photographic plates. The story goes that the machine was used to
investigate the strong psychic talents of his wife. Other reports say that it
was used to effect distance healing and diagnosis of medical conditions. The
theory of how the machine was supposed to work was, and is still the subject of
great controversy.
I feel that mentioning the “De La Warr Machine” in connection with the new
experimental developments detracted from the more interesting news hinted at in
the experimental findings. The photographic plate used in the experiment was
sufficient in its own right.
Nevertheless, the story goes that De La Warr was asked to apply his technology
to determine what was wrong with a sick cow. The cow was subsequently found to
have a wire lodged in its stomach. Although I am not clear on the events, a
glass plate image of the wire and the “De La Warr” machine were presumably
used to diagnose the condition of the cow.
Whether the machine somehow produced the glass plate or the plate was just an
experimental sample was unclear. The important point was that the new MRI/Quantum
Theory technology was able to detect and present three-dimensional imagery of a
cow encoded in the 2D glass photographic plate image of the wire.
The technology used quantum phase measurements and computer manipulation of the
data to create the image. Dr. Mitchell likened the process to that used by
astronomers to enhance the capability of ground-based telescopes to see through
the distortion of the atmosphere. In astronomy a laser beam is shot in to the
atmosphere and its distorted reflection is then used to calculate corrections to
the telescope using computer analysis. This greatly improves their imaging
ability.
It has been found that photographic negatives have higher “signature” as a
remote viewing target than their prints, or worse yet, photocopies of prints.
There seems to be a progressive loss of resolution the further one goes down the
copy trail. A similar effect happens as holographic images are sliced in to
smaller and smaller bits. The basic image is there, but the detail is reduced.
The fact that a cow’s image can be detected out of a 2D image of a wire that
was in its stomach is weird and astonishing. If Dr. Mitchell’s claim that
computer enhanced manipulation of information encoded in the quantum phase
nature of molecules is true and if this can be independently verified, this is
indeed an important new scientific development. Caution is advised. We don't
know the circumstances of the image’s creation, or what experimental controls
were in place.
This is very new, unpublished and speculative. Scientific papers have been
presented on the physics and math, which support this new theory. The papers
have passed peer review and will likely be published in a matter of weeks,
according to Dr. Mitchell.
Since this article is about remote viewing, I want to bring us back to some of
the writings of Renè Warcollier. The previously mentioned developments shed new
light on the meaning of his earlier experiments in the 1920’s and 30’s.
I want to continue with some excerpts from Warcollier’s book Beyond Telepathy:
“…in telepathic transmission it is a question not of acquaintanceship, but
of accord.” P.81 (This refers to the acquaintance of the sender and receiver).
“Apparently it is the will of the percipient alone that is effective in the
majority of cases, in making telepathic transmission possible…We must
emphasize the multiple impressions which assail the percipient.” P.82
“…telepathy being considered as a phenomenon analogous to acoustic
resonance, residing in a syntonization, a “vibrating with”, which may be
spontaneous indeed.”
In my readings of Warcollier’s work, it is clear thought rather than strong
intent on the part of the agent (targeteer) seems to be more important.
Several factors seem to aid the viewer: Sympathy (affinity for the target),
Antipathy (a strong negative identification with the subject) and an ability to
not add extraneous data to the perceived imagery.
The information presented by Dr. Mitchell would seem to explain the agency of
both the targeting of remote data and the ability to perceive it. It also falls
in nicely with the experimental results of Renè Warcollier.
The data indicates that remote viewing involves the interaction with the quantum
phase nature of distant subjects. In fact the ability of people to perceive
information based on quantum phase encoding may be the only reason we are able
to perceive anything at all.
Near field objects have the added advantage of a channel of molecular level
sensors that are hard wired to our brain. This is as it should be from a
biological, evolutionary standpoint. We should be less concerned about the tiger
on the next continent than the lion in our own back yard. Which is to say, it is
for very good survival reasons that the main data input channel gets most of our
attention. Indirect quantum phase resonant perceptions are relegated to the
realm of intuition and other extrasensory perceptions. In this sense,
extrasensory means outside the main hard wired biochemical channel.
Once the information is sensed it somehow becomes our own personal construct of
the world. How do the photons bouncing off the lion end up in the complex world
we perceive? I submit that it isn't the neurological firings in the brain that
contain meaning, and our conceptual construct of the world. Instead, the brain
may be the gross structure of a quantum phase resonant processor. Modern science
is enamored with the electrochemical explanation of how consciousness happens.
This is the modern myth of how things work based on the best science available
to date. I believe this new data will show that something much more interesting
is happening on a quantum level.
As a paradigm for allowing normal perception and remote viewing (not to mention
other psychic functioning) to happily coexist, this is an interesting and
perhaps effective new working model. What is most exciting to me is that the
math and physics of how it works have been developed; peer reviewed, and will
soon be published. This is real science, not wishful thinking.
So how does remote viewing work? Here’s one man’s guess…by “Phase
Conjugate Adaptive Resonance” (PCAR) a la Dr. Edgar Mitchell and associated
researchers. First, the person designating the target resonates with the subject
to be viewed by intentionally viewing a picture containing a meaningful
representation of the target or by experiencing the target itself.
In this process, the agent or targeteer further associates something else like a
cryptic identifier (target ID) that will act as an ingress point for the remote
viewer. This identifier has now been “PCAR’d” with the original subject.
In a sense, a further bit of information has been added to the matrix of quantum
data that is the target.
If you can access any part of an associatively linked set of information, you
can access it all. My teacher at the Hawaii Remote Viewer’s Guild, Glenn
Wheaton, has said many times “If anything can be known by remote viewing,
everything can be known by remote viewing.” I think this is amply explained
when you consider the holographic, associative nature of information encoded in
the quantum phase nature of everything. The principle of non-locality renders
everything available. Conscious focus determines which body of information is
perceived.
This brings me to the explanation of how remote perception works. The key idea
here is resonance. Beginning with the cryptic identifier produced by the one
tasking the target, the viewer begins perceiving gestaltic data associated with
the target identifier. Slowly, as perception builds, one begins to phase in with
more and more of the quantum field that is the target.
Because of the non-local nature of the quantum field, the viewer’s activity of
faithfully resonating and associating with the target information increasingly
establishes contact with the non-local nature of the target. This causes his
consciousness to ingress the field. Or, perhaps it is better to say that the
non-local nature of the activity asserts itself to a higher and higher degree
until the viewer and the viewed have fully established space-time non-locality.
They have become one. This is how the non-local nature of the quantum field
comes to play and allows the viewer to extract, perceive and even experience the
remote target.
This theory puts to rest some of the problems of remote viewing versus
electromagnetic wave theory. Electromagnetic waves propagate in time and space.
Quantum effects are non-local. The quantum propagation of information resolves
the time space paradoxes that remote viewing presents. Electromagnetism still
plays an important role. It has been shown that electromagnetic noise can
interfere with our ability to perceive. That electromagnetic shielding helps or
ability to perceive has been well demonstrated by remote viewers taking
advantage of local sidereal time.
Well this sounds just marvelous, but why can't we view anything, anywhere,
anytime? Why are some people better at remote viewing than others? And can
anybody learn how to do it?
If all information is non-local by virtue of its quantum nature, we need a built
in perceptual constraint otherwise we would be flooded with information. I
suspect this is a feature of the packaging we come in. The genetic coding that
has built up over the ages has adapted us to our environment. It is a constraint
implicit in living on a planet at the bottom of a gravity well. We are
constrained by three (four) macroscopic dimensions and inhabit and a biologic
vessel.
Some people seem to have a stronger natural talent for psychic functioning.
Possibly, they're attention is less affixed to the normal sensory channels.
There is enough quantum information leakage that they are able to put together
interesting non-local observations about the world.
This can be very confusing to people who they're experience the world in the
same way. It has lead to prejudicial treatment by “normal” people and is the
source of the “fringe” and “weird science” label that the conventional
establishment places on people that exhibit psychic abilities or who do research
in this area.
Psychic functioning is a subject of great curiosity to most people. I have
noticed that people who experienced trauma, particularly head trauma, report a
higher degree of psychic perceptions of one kind or another. When anyone reports
to me about visions, sightings, intuitions or talents of an esoteric nature, I
always question them about their trauma history. They almost universally report
a prior physical or psychic injury of some kind.
The classic example of trauma inducing altered perception is the out of body
experience following a near death. I suspect that there is a natural governor
built in to the healthy human’s genetic code, which enforces our sense of
locality and linear time. Trauma tends to loosen the bindings of this
connection.
I also suspect that many mentally ill people are subjected to indiscriminate
access to quantum phase information and are haunted by voices and visions that
are chaotic simply because they are not bound in a healthy manner to their main
channel sensory inputs. It is a blessing that some folks are able to integrate
psychic functioning into their lives in a healthy manner. Perhaps the
disciplined use of remote viewing protocols may one day be redesigned to help
people make sense out of chaotic extrasensory perceptions.
It has been said that training is not really necessary to become a good remote
viewer. There is some truth in this. Many people have developed or are blessed
with a fairly high degree of psychic functioning. For the rest of us training is
a must.
In order for me to marshal my meager psychic resources I need a paradigm (a
mythology if you will) and a language. These allow me integrate my linear,
analytical aspects with the intuitive, psychic aspects of my being. The theory
helps me to form a world view that I am comfortable with. The remote viewing
protocols and training allow me to share my experiences and results with others
in a coherent fashion.
In some small way I hope this series of articles has helped give the interested
reader broader appreciation for the subject.
Part VI
Progress
in understanding our world ultimately rests on the ability to appreciate and
visualize the simple.
Albert Einstein believed that no matter how complicated the math, the ultimate
picture of how things work was so simple and elegant that everyday people could
understand. He personally started off with a simple idea then described how he
saw it. A simple idea evolved in to a simple formula, E=mc2. Through intuitive
skill, he developed theories that changed the world.
Another great physicist, Richard Feynman, produced the first successful theory
uniting the special relativity of Einstein with quantum mechanics. Quantum
mechanics is a marvelous theory for things that happen in a normal time frame.
It isn't a formula of everything. The calculations break down as you approach
the speed of light, the domain of special relativity. Special relativity is
fine, but irrelevant at speeds much below the speed of light. Uniting these two
theories was a great feat.
Feynman would get an idea of how things should work and then represent the
solution pictorially, bypassing the math. This was tremendously frustrating for
colleagues whose careers were characterized by plodding through excruciatingly
complex mathematics in search of answers to the big questions of physics.
Physics has come a long way. We now have Superstring Theory, which is very
exciting and may ultimately be the unified field theory, the “Theory of
Everything” that the physicists have been searching for, at least as it
applies to the four forces.
Conventional thought acknowledges gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and
weak nuclear forces as the four pillars of all there is. Mainstream scientists
believe that these four are all that is needed to explain all that is. But wait
a minute…consciousness is totally missing. There is no physical theory of
consciousness. There is no physical theory that explains remote viewing.
Perhaps this is because physicists feel that consciousness doesn't seem to fit
in to the definition of a physical force. It has been shown that conscious
influence on physical objects can be detected. Experiments using random number
generators have shown this.
If a consciousness field were superimposed on the other four forces, could its
effects be measured using the same standards we apply to physical objects and
energies? How much does a thought weigh? How many pounds per square inch can you
apply with a strong feeling?
Experiments have statistically proved the effect of psychic influences. They are
extremely small in physical terms, yet an idea created the computer I am typing
on and strong feelings are changing the political landscape of the world as I
write. Is there a physical effect? The answer is obvious.
If you remove or alter a fundamental force of nature, meaning disappears. No
gravity…no Earth. All gravity…no Universe. No consciousness…no meaning. No
buildings, cars, watches or religions. No life. The same holds true for
electromagnetism and the forces of the atomic nucleus.
A magnetic field cutting through a wire induces electricity. A conscious field
creatively applied to matter and energy in space-time generates form. The
effects run the gamut from the massive to the etheric; from the living to the
dead. Complex mental creations like music can stand on there own as an entity in
the conscious field just as a building can stand on its own in concrete, stone
and steel in a gravity field.
The question of whether remote viewing works, has been put to bed. Utterly
irrefutable scientific studies have proved the existence of psychic functioning.
The importance of remote viewing is that it demonstrates action across time and
space. If I can retrieve remote information simply by exercising conscious will,
then I have acted on the universe.
Like Feynman’s colleagues, many physicists are unable or unwilling to look at
things from a fresh perspective. Many are drunk with the possibilities of
Superstring theory, the depths of which they have only begun to plumb.
I believe there is ample proof that consciousness is a fifth fundamental force.
As remote viewers, we can take our inspiration from Einstein, Feynman and other
ground breaking thinkers as we investigate the field of consciousness.
Let’s begin by visualizing in simple terms some of the characteristics of this
“force”.
- Multidimensional.
Since it seems to operate in violation of space-time restrictions, it must
be “unified” at greater than four dimensions.
By unification, we mean that one force can be seen as an aspect or extension
of another force. Einstein had to postulate “Spacetime”, a unification
of space and time in order to unify the concepts of matter and energy.
- Field strength.
When a magnetic field passes through a wire, it induces an electric current.
The stronger the field, or the more rapidly it passes through the wire, the
stronger the current. The inverse is also true. Electric current through a
wire produces a magnetic field proportional to the current flow.
There have been thousands of reports of people that “knew” when a loved
one was in danger or had died. The intensity and personal interest in the
event induced an extrasensory perception. The moment in the movie Star Wars
when Obi-Wan “Ben” Ken obi senses a tremor in the Force when the planet
explodes is a dramatic example of an incident with a large psychological
impact exhibiting a high “field strength” for the purpose of remote
viewing.
Combining the examples above, we have a unique phenomenon that exhibits some
of the qualities of a magnetic field. It has some of the characteristics of
induction, like a proportional response to intensity, but is missing the
familiar space-time component.
- Singularity.
Mass bends space as in a gravitational field. It extends in all directions;
at least in the three spatial directions. The ultimate expression of gravity
is the “Black Hole”; a gravity well so strong that not even light can
escape.
Gravity distinguishes what’s at its center from the space around it. It
imparts the quality of singularity and uniqueness to what would otherwise be
undifferentiated cosmic goop. Gravity glues discrete particles of energy and
mass into an association having a combined identity that it otherwise
wouldn't have.
The Earth and Moon circle each other, captured by their interacting
gravitational fields. If you approach this system from far away, in route to
the Moon, you couldn't help but be influenced by the Earth. If your intent
and skill as a navigator wavered, you would almost certainly be sucked into
Earth’s gravitational field, missing your target entirely.
My esteemed colleague, Sita Seery, recently published a prime example of the
remote viewing equivalent of this on the Hawaii Remote Viewer’s Guild web
site. The recent World Trade Center bombing caused a massive accretion in
the conscious field. To use the example above, it was as if, in the course
of traveling to a Moon-sized planet, the Earth suddenly appeared. In this
case the intended target was a relatively mundane validation target. An
important aspect of this is that the viewing took place several hours before
the actual event occurred.
The field strength of the WTC event was so powerful that the session work
was littered with WTC data from multiple viewers. This is a prime example of
how field strength applies to RV and how conventional space-time
considerations are violated in the conscious field.
An event or thing that has any coherency of its own has a center of sorts.
It is not a center of gravity, but a center of meaning. It is a center of
importance. It has a singular quality that distinguishes it from everything
else.
- Association.
This is like that. This is with that. Association acts much like static
electricity. Things which are in close proximity cling together. In this
case like charges attract. It has it’s mirror opposite in the
electromagnetic field where like charges repel.
Things that are associated by virtue of spatial proximity, by meaning or by
emotion accrete into a center of sorts, apart from that imposed by gravity.
High association equals high cohesion. Low association equals nebulosity.
If gravity were subject to whimsy, the cosmos would continuously morph with
our changes in ideas about it. It doesn't. Our ideas, feelings and impulses
govern our actions and are subject to the action of thought. They cause
continuous changes in the conscious landscape. This defines the boundary
between features of the conscious field versus energy-mass features of the
gravitational field. There is overlap. The dynamics operate differently but
with ghostly similarity.
- Discrimination.
This is not like that. This is not with that. This is the complement of
association.
All the meaning we perceive, exists between the vacuum of space and the
highly defined point created by the gravitational wells of spatial bodies.
If gravity were an absolutely irresistible force, all there is would fall
together in a Big Crunch. There would no longer be any meaning to the
concept “Universe”.
One set of associated ideas or events is unique from another set of ideas by
virtue of our ability to disassociate one from another. As association and
disassociation change, the topography of the conscious field changes.
- Perspective.
Events as we conventionally perceive them are organized in meaningful ways
due to their angle of incidence in space-time relative to the percipient.
This is how our mind assigns causality.
Consciousness as a field is superior to but coexists with spacetime. A
portion of the conscious field is intimately connected with and conditioned
by the four dimensions. This aspect of mind processes the world in terms of
causality. This is the appropriate domain for rational, analytical thought.
What is interesting about remote viewing is that it teaches the viewer to
collect data from that part of the field that is not preconditioned to
four-dimensional constraints. By disconnecting the normal analytical mode of
thinking, we are able to retrieve data unrestricted by space and time.
As Rene Warcollier states in his book Experiments in Telepathy, “In
fact, telepathy almost never manifests itself to the percipient by a
sense-image or a memory-image of the agent.” Which is to say, the data is
not perceived with the analytical and rational framework intact as it
applies to direct sensing or as it applies to memory. “It seems that
memory or sense images disintegrate into their component elements; and it is
from these elements, revived by the percipient, that the creative
imagination reconstructs, as well it can, the perception or memory-image of
the agent.”
The characteristics of the conscious field, apart from the constraints of
the matter-energy-gravity fields are such that “meaning” is divorced
from sequential, causal references. The information is there but the
framework in which it is normally understood is missing. Association is king
when time and space are rendered irrelevant.
Remember, at the speed of light, quantum mechanics breaks down. At lower
velocities special relativity breaks down. In the conscious field space-time
and causality breaks down. All are accurate pictures of how the universe
works, but each is king in its own domain.
- Meaning.
How we assemble data has to do with our unique qualities of creative
intelligence. It also has to do with all the other factors I have mentioned
till now: The multidimensional aspect of the conscious field, field
strength, singularity, association, discrimination and perspective all play
a part.
When we attempt to remote view, we
establish an association with a field in the matrix that has some level of
identity and cohesion of its own. It is a thing or event that exists in the past
or future. It has a topography governed by the physical matter, energy and
consciousness that give it meaning. We approach it following a chain of
associations. As remote viewers, our approach to a target is conditioned by our
ability to manage the data.
Each person is unique in the way they filter data through their conscious and
subconscious mind. We perceive what we can. The rest is filtered out. As a
conscious being approaching an event in the matrix, the way one senses and
reports data and ones ability to home in on the intended subject are totally
governed by our unique nature. It takes skill and practice to learn to collect
data without altering the subtleties of the field with ones own ideas and
memories. This environment is tenuous and subtle. Ones thoughts have field
strength of their own. Thoughts can create new associative relationships as one
enters the field of the target. When this happens it becomes difficult to
navigate. Biases of our own creation can cause us to miss that target entirely.
Memories from our prior associations can overlay and confuse what is really
there.
One difficulty of the topography is that there are times when personal
preferences pull us toward something we naturally find more interesting. The
landscape of the consciousness field is filled with subjects in close proximity
to one another due to associative linkage. It is easy to lose focus and go
chasing after something other than the target. If the subject being remote
viewed were a cat up a tree, I would be attracted to the fire truck that had
come to assist. That fire truck appeals to me; the cat doesn't. If this were my
beloved cat up the tree, I would be infused with emotion but probably War
collier wouldn't notice fireman Bob. Well-disciplined remote viewers can manage
the distractions and apply themselves to the target that was tasked.
The remote viewing problem imposed by the World Trade Center event is one of
field strength. Similarly, if you attempt to view the center of Hiroshima today,
there is a fair chance that you will be sucked in to the event horizon of the
atomic explosion of 1945. Field strength in the consciousness field can and
often does overwhelm space-time.
In conclusion, I would like to say that remote viewing could be the pry bar that
opens us up to a grander perspective of our universe. If consciousness is a
fundamental force of nature, many of the anomalies we see, like remote viewing
and other psychic functioning, suddenly become simple in a way that anyone can
understand.
Maybe Einstein was right. Maybe regular people will be able to understand when
we finally see the simple, beautiful truth of it all.
Part VII
In
this article I will attempt to summarize the main points from previous articles
and give a brief illustration of each.
Remote viewing data accretes by association.
Thoughts form "Thoughtforms" (n.). Picture ideas as bubbles, thought
bubbles if you will. They float about in a sea of other bubbles that bump in to
each other. They stick to each other, merge, repel and congregate. Basic needs
dictate some of the associations. Fight or flight, hunger, sex and basic
proximity are among the key organizing forces. This is the primitive mind.
The conscious mind throws its neural net onto this sea of thought bubbles and
organizes them in ways that make us more successful. These are the two basic
levels of organization: pure association, and cognitive organization. The
associative level is primal and is the level we tap in to when we operate as
remote viewers.
Analysis of primary perceptual data is counterproductive during acquisition.
The important thing to note is that the associative mind is indiscriminant. Time
and space are organizational categories that belong to the cognitive awareness,
not the subconscious. One begins a remote viewing session by sensing what has
been associated with the target identifier. To the extent that one engages
cognitive organization around this data acquisition process, one looses the
ability to accurately extract the non-spatial, non-temporal information that the
subconscious allows us to access.
Perceptual detail and perspective depend on personal tendencies, conscious or
not, and vary from person to person.
Who you are, in all your complexity, profoundly effects how you process the
world around you. If your attention is wrapped up in attitudes, feelings, past
experiences and the trauma of life, you will find it difficult to clearly
perceive subtle information made available through the exercise of remote
viewing protocols.
How well do you pay attention to details in waking life? Are you perceptually
alive, or do you walk through life in a haze?
Imagery can be gestaltic, metaphorical or direct.
Perception happens in many ways. Usually, at the beginning of a remote viewing
session, target contact is tenuous at best. Information arrives as if filtered
through a thick, hazy darkness. This is the gestaltic level of apprehension. As
contact improves, imagery begins to assemble metaphorically. We are shown
likenesses that aren't necessarily the target itself, but are associatively
similar. There is no framework of meaning on which to hang perceived data. The
thick hazy darkness begins to assemble into people, places and things that are
hard to make sense of, like a mumbled sentence, whispered by a passing stranger.
Example: The target is a pool of blood. Your subconscious mind associates the
color red with a billiard ball of the same color. You are more adept at
perceiving shapes than colors. You draw a circle, or on a higher level, you see
a couple people playing billiards. On a higher level yet, the people playing are
both people you know that have passed away, indicating that the source of the
blood at the actual target was associated with a death.
Finally, if we are very disciplined and perceptive we begin to receive data that
is highly accurate and recognizable. Sometimes it may even seem hyper-real. This
is the level of direct contact with the target. A substantial part of your
consciousness has phased in with the essential elements of the target. So much
so that the target reality becomes very real indeed. If one is able to mange
ones consciousness to a high degree, one can even move around in the target
reality as if actually there.
There are both common and unique gestaltic symbols.
There are basic data so simple that they are virtually universal: a sloping
line, for a hill, a wavy line for water, or a vortex for energy. A person can be
creative even with simple gestalts. One viewer I recall always had a simple
cross in the work if there was a dead person at the target, a metaphoric
gestalt. Another always had an inverted U if there was a doorway.
The metaphorical language can be highly specific to the individual or
archetypal.
The above example of the blood and the billiard ball is demonstrative of
metaphorical language that is specific to the individual. Metaphorical language
can also be represented in common themes much like dream imagery. In archetypal
imagery the thematic quality that can be recognized by most people.
Past, present and future are accessible.
The sub conscious mind does not know "before-after" or
"cause-effect". These concepts are part of the cognitive overlay of
the conscious mind. The subconscious mind can be induced to retrieve non-spatial
and non-temporal data by engaging its power of association. A remote viewer
takes a target ID that has been associatively linked with a target and slowly
follows the trail of associations while holding the cognitive aspects of the
mind at bay.
We are so highly biased in our thoughts by the tremendous success of the
conscious mind's ability to think in logical terms, that perceiving outside of
the space-time box seems like utter fantasy to many people, particularly the
scientifically trained and the skeptical.
Future realities are available to the extent that the potentialities of all
the factors that form them are certain.
Thoughts held in mind create after their kind. Many thoughts of the same kind
create a larger potential. A summation or integration of the potential happens.
This potential wave results in the forms of life: buildings, cars, machines,
societies and the events of life. The more consciousness contributing to the
wave, the more likely an image will appear in physical form. The potential for
alternate realities collapse in the face of the one that was, is and shall be
selected.
The idea that the future isn't real is an error in perspective. The present is a
dynamic point. If you stand on the mouth of a geyser, the imminent arrival of
the next eruption and the consequences of that act will consume your attention.
You can't help but contemplate the potential below you and what will form in the
air above you. The cognitive ability to appreciate the past, present and
unfolding future is profoundly biased by the nature of the environment. The
conscious mind is the tool we use to manage this dynamic world around us.
The subconscious mind, not having the same appreciation for space-time dynamics
can access the reality that, in cognitive terms, "will be" created.
The farther one moves away from the probability wave of the future that is
forming in front of us, the less likely we will acquire accurate remote viewing
data. Chaos overwhelms the alternate probabilities. Chaos ultimately degrades
our ability perceive events in the far future.
Artificial descriptors of time (Hours, minutes, seconds) are less effective
than the perception of natural temporal indicators.
Sometimes it is important to know what time it was at the target. Was the theft
a night job or a day job? Was the child abducted before school or after school?
The subconscious is dyslexic. It can't read a watch or a newspaper except in
very special circumstances and by rare talent. It can tell if it is light or
dark. It can smell the smells of Spring or Winter. It can hear the song of the
bird that only sings while mating in June or the school bell for recess.
Advanced remote viewing protocols exist that try to take advantage of these
natural tendencies.
Clear intent is important.
There is only so much attention. If you are preoccupied by the fight with the
spouse, your bills, the dog barking or that feeling of hunger, you will have
less attention to devote to the task at hand. All the thoughts and emotions that
you are experiencing in present time are competing for headspace with the
arriving target imagery. Anything other than imagery from the target will merge
with and obfuscate the data you are interested in.
On the flip side, when a targeteer is preparing a target to be viewed, it is
very important that his environment be as pristine as possible. Anything in the
targeteer's environment or headspace can find its way into the target cuing
process.
To the subconscious mind, everything is equal to everything. It is
indiscriminate. The targeteer may not even be aware of interfering data. A
target that is clearly prepared and viewed with a clear mind will succeed almost
every time.
Strong feelings or affinity for the subject can influence target acquisition.
Highly attractive or repellent emotions in close proximity to the target
subject, can act as a beacon. There have been many reports of people woken in
the night by a feeling of premonition or dread on the occasion of a loved one's
distress or death.
If a remote viewer is given a target for which they have a high degree of
passion, chances are they will be more successful. This can also be a problem.
If the subject is closely associated with a high strength event or emotion, it
may be very difficult for the remote viewer to discriminate what constitutes the
intended data.
Example: If the viewer is supposed to find out what is in the suspicious box
hidden under the stage at the concert, it may be impossible for them to ignore
the rock band playing on the stage.
Information is encoded in the phase nature of matter (how fast and in what
direction particles spin). Imagery and information is holographic in nature.
I believe that information is encoded in the phase relationships of quantum
particles. This has been called "Phase Conjugate Adaptive Resonance"¹or
"Quantum Holographic Phase Conjugate Adaptive Resonance"² in articles
and lectures on the subject. Experiments have proven that there is a non-local
quality to the phase relationship of quantum particles. The ability of the
subconscious mind to follow a trail of associated information clearly has
something to do with our natural ability to interact with the target subject. Is
there a connection?
Our brain is a network of electrically charged neuro-chemicals. The mind/brain
combination uses associative modeling to bias itself in such a way as to
phase-emulate the subject in question. It is possible to "phase in" to
the target of interest and exchange non-local phase based information. As our
mentor Glenn Wheaton says in his beginning lecture, "everything is
communication". Information pre-exists. The creative patterning must exist
before form.
I picture the mind as a quantum holographic image that acts as a computer. It is
a construct of phase relationships. Our physiology is a material image of the
quantum hologram, which serves as the pattern for its creation. Or, looking at
it from the opposite perspective, the mind is bootstrapped from the quantum
phase nature of our neural network and the electrochemical nature of our body.
Depending on which direction you think the arrow of creation points, determines
which model you choose.
Intelligence interacts with the quantum hologram, which in turn interacts with
the bio-chemical and neural features of our chemistry on a quantum level.
Assuming this is true, it would explain how we are able to access non-local,
non-temporal data. The implications of this model are exciting, not only to
remote viewing, but to healing to learning, and many other areas.
Electromagnetic fields interfere with perception. Absence of electromagnetic
fields improves perception.
That brings me to the subject of electromagnetic fields, which are everywhere.
They penetrate our body and introduce information (or chaotic noise) into
anything that is sensitive. If you are trying to perceive subtle quantum
holographic information, you can only be hindered in the face of electromagnetic
noise.
Electromagnetic shielding has been shown to enhance remote viewing success. The
reason for this is the improved signal to noise ration in the shielded
environment.
We at HRVG are attempting to build or acquire a Faraday cage; an
electromagnetically shielded room in which we can do advanced experiments in
this area. We could use some help with this project and other endeavors we are
contemplating. As a non-profit, we are always grateful for contributions. If you
would like to contribute to the furtherance of knowledge in this field, please
contact us.
¹ Edgar Mitchell, Phd, Lecture, 2001 Remote Viewing Conference.
² P. J. Marcer, BSc, DPhil, FBCS, A Quantum Mechanical Model of Evolution and
Consciousness
Part VIII
Quantum
physics is truly strange. It is quite a stretch for the properly grounded
conventionally oriented human. Remote viewing is just as strange. Being a lover
of strange things, I continue in this article with some thoughts on why quantum
physics and remote viewing are intimately related and why it is important for
remote viewers to have at least a provisional knowledge of how physics and
consciousness work together. This is a controversial subject and many of the
ideas I propose are theoretical and unproven. Nevertheless, I have done a great
deal of research and believe the information will be helpful for remote viewers
that are struggling to find an explanation for their experiences.
The nature of remote viewing is intimately tied with the nature of thought. It
is also intimately tied with the nature of the physical world. It is therefore
important to understand how thought and matter interact. The skeptic applies
classical understanding of the physical world to psychic functioning and is in
disbelief when he hears claims of extraordinary abilities. The mystic tries to
translate personal experience, in terms of the mundane world and is often
frustrated by the difficulty. Thankfully, there have been many new advances in
physics and philosophy that give us hope that the gap between these two
worldviews is closing.
What is it about thought and matter that make them so fundamentally different?
Amit Goswami, Ph.D., resident quantum physicist at the Institute for Noetic
Sciences says that one big difference is the “grossness” of the macro world.
Physical and mental objects are both quantum substances. The physical objects we
see are composed of smaller and smaller components whereas mental objects are
already at their fundamental level of simplicity. There are no thought molecules
or thought atoms.
Quantum objects like photons and electrons obey the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle, which says that you cannot simultaneously measure the position and
velocity of quantum objects with accuracy. You can only state where they might
be or how fast they might be going. The mathematics of Quantum Physics allows us
to calculate these probabilities with a high degree of accuracy.
Quantum objects are subtle. The act of observation itself interferes with the
photon or electron. Of all the possible places or velocities the particle can
assume, conscious observation fixes either it's position or velocity, but not
both.
According to physicist David Bohm, you can verify directly that thoughts-mental
objects-obey the uncertainty principle; because you can never simultaneously
keep track of both the content of a thought and where it is going, (the
direction of thought). Thoughts are therefore quantum in their very nature.
Contrast this to macro scale objects. Even though our observed physical world is
composed of quantum objects, we can’t observe them directly. Because of the
microscopic scale and because of the conglomerate nature of the things we
observe, mere observation has an extremely small effect. Between the time I look
at a wall then you look at the same wall a short time later, the probabilities
have changed so little due to our conscious interference, that we can have a
high degree of consensus about where the wall is and where it is likely to be in
the future, i.e. its position and velocity.
How does remote viewing fit in to this scheme? As has been shown in past
articles, there is a direct correlation between the idea of quantum non-locality
and our ability to associatively link our awareness to information that is
displaced in space and time. How do we reconcile the gap between classical
Newtonian physics and the subtle nature of quantum physics? How are humans able
to perceive quantum physical objects non-locally and interact in a classical
world of objective reality at the same time?
The grossness of the physical world and the subtleness of the quantum world are
beautifully balanced in a hierarchy of ascending and descending order. Our feet
are firmly planted on the earth. Our identity is firmly fixed in our bodies. Our
thoughts and feelings are intimately associated with the subtlest aspects of our
neurochemistry.
Thoughts, emotions, perceptions, intuitions and our creativity come from the
quantum nature of the world and are fixed at increasingly gross levels by
chemistry, physiology and physics. The fully functioning, healthy human can
exist all along this gradient of manifestation. The ability to hold the highest
potential from the subtlest to the grossest levels of reality in harmony with
the rest of creation is the hallmark of a successful human being.
The successful remote viewer has the ability to interact with the subtle nature
of the world. The remote viewer learns to use techniques that bridge the
gradient from subtle to gross. The remote viewer ascends and descends this
hierarchy of existence to render pictures and words on paper that once existed
in the quantum nature of reality alone. I think this is the true value of
learning this skill.
According to a recent article in Discover Magazine by Tom Folger, eminent
scientist John Wheeler believes that consciousness shapes the universe, not only
the present but the past as well. According to the article, physicists at the
University of Maryland proved this in the laboratory in 1984. “Using a light
source and an arrangement of mirrors to provide a number of possible photon
routes, the physicists were able to show that the paths the photons took were
not fixed until the physicists made their measurements, even though their
measurements were made after the photons had already left the light source and
begun their circuit through the course of mirrors.”
What this shows is that when consciousness interacts with quantum reality, it
selectively causes some aspect of the quantum potential to become real. It
causes one of all the possible outcomes to manifest. It also shows that it
doesn’t matter whether the so-called causal event (in this case the emission
of the photon), happened in the past or not.
“The successful remote viewer has the ability to interact with the subtle
nature of the world. The remote viewer learns to use techniques that bridge the
gradient from subtle to gross.”
On the one hand it would seem that we live in a magical world where cause and
effect are weirdly affected by a mere glance. On the other hand, we all struggle
with gross reality. I can’t manifest a new car out of the quantum soup any
more than the next guy can. There are many features of reality that fix the
nature of quantum events and make the physical world behave the way it does.
According to Dr. Amit Goswami in his book Physics of the Soul, without a body,
or a brain there can be no collapse of the possibility waves of quantum objects.
Ordinarily quantum experiments use gross objects like a Geiger counter or some
other detector to “measure” the quantum particles of interest. Even so, it
takes an actual observation by a conscious observer to “quantify” what is
being detected.
According to Dr. Goswami, one thought is just as possible, subtle and ephemeral
as the next. All thoughts operate on the same scale. Since there is no hierarchy
of action, one thought can never manifest another as reality without the
intercession of a living being whether it is a living cell or a brain.
When a human observes the outcome of a quantum experiment there are actual
molecular changes in the physiology of the brain. According to the proposals of
Dr. Stuart Hameroff and Dr. Roger Penrose this process takes place in the
microtubules that make up the neurons in our brains. Quantum states are fixed by
the orientation of the proteins that make up the structure of these
microtubules. The interesting thing is that these proteins can be in an
indeterminate quantum state. Until a choice is made, until an observation is
made, they represent all of the several possible configurations that protein can
have.
Millions of protein molecules along the microtubules of each neuron are
interconnected with each other in an array that makes up the neuron and
ultimately determines when, if and in what manner the neuron fires. This
hierarchy of events beginning at a quantum level and ascending in grossness to
neuro-chemical events is a means of amplifying what is going on at a quantum
level. Possibilities are manifest as intricate assemblies of neural proteins.
The configuration of these proteins is selected by consciousness.
What we experience as conscious thought occurs very far upstream from the
molecular level of action. Massive orderings of the quantum states of our
neurochemistry show up as thoughts, emotions and perceptions. Our cognitive mind
operates at this level of complexity.
Conscious choice and intent cascade down the ladder of action just as quantum
information cascades up. It is a bi-directional feedback loop. It is not unlike
the biblical reference to “Jacob’s Ladder” with angels ascending and
descending between heaven and earth. Our conscious will (and our unconscious
predispositions) bias our quantum computer to receive the information we
receive.
Remote viewing works because this channel of action exists between the quantum
physical and the electrochemical and neurological levels of our brain. Remember,
one of the characteristics of quantum reality is non-locality.
In Alain Aspects experiment with correlated (entangled) photons it was
conclusively shown that when one experimenter observes a photon, thus collapsing
its state, the other correlated photon will immediately acquire this state but
it will remain as potential and unexperienced until another observer measures
it. It doesn’t matter how far away the other photon is. Theoretically it could
be on the other side of the galaxy.
By consciously cuing a cryptic identifier, a target ID, to a remote viewing
target we are creating a non-local link to that target. A new, unused target
identifier, for instance: 2M4Y-6L0U doesn’t mean anything. The symbol is only
a thought and therefore quantum in nature. The possibilities of what this target
ID could mean are practically infinite. Before a target is cued to this ID, it
is in an indeterminate state. Its quantum wave function has not collapsed.
A targeteer, being careful to have in mind only the subject that he wants
viewed, identifies it with the target identifier. At this point, the only
meaning in the entire universe that this cryptic symbol identifies is that of
the target. This symbols’ quantum wave function has now collapsed into a state
representative of the actual target. The targeteer has created a quantum phase
entanglement between the real target and the target identifier, much like the
quantum entanglement in Alain Aspects experiment with photons.
As the remote viewer clears his mind and concentrates on the identifier, he
biases his own quantum computer (brain) to predispose it to the target. He
collapses some of the quantum nature of his consciousness in the form of the
target ID. This target identifier means more than just a random set of symbols
due to the actions of the targeteer. It now is intimately identified with the
target and nothing else. As the extended meaning of this target identifier comes
through it begins to assemble at higher levels of neural activity until it
becomes a perception.
It is well known that as one learns, one will more easily learn things that are
similar. Your mind predisposes itself to receiving more of the same. At first
when you begin to perceive remote data that is cued to a target ID, very little
in the way of reference and predisposition exists. After all, to the conscious
mind a target ID has no meaning whatsoever.
As the nature of the target slowly impresses itself on your consciousness, more
and more of your quantum machinery is brought into play. Bits of disjointed data
begin to assemble at higher and higher resolution as entanglement with the
target increases. This is why it is very important for the remote viewer to keep
the analytical mind disengaged.
If one were to know the nature of the target ahead of time (front loaded remote
viewing), a whole different set of quantum effects comes in to play. Not only
the target, but also all the secondary effects of what you thought, felt or knew
about the subject or any similar subject become entangled with the intended
target. Under these circumstances there is no way to discriminate between actual
target data and ones imaginings or remembrances. Even if you were especially
astute at screening imaginary or remembered data from the actual target, you
would never convince the skeptical observer.
Unfortunately, many people that claim to be remote viewers do not understand the
importance of being ignorant of the target prior to viewing. Even some people
that claim to be teachers of remote viewing are either woefully ignorant or are
playing fast and loose with remote viewing protocols for their personal gain.
One has to use a very sharp intellectual knife to slice the charlatans and the
self deluded from the actual application of this skill. If we aren’t mindful
of what constitutes true remote viewing versus false claims about it, the
credibility that we are trying so hard to establish will be washed away by
sensationalist claims that make their way on to the popular mass media.
There is very strong scientific information that supports our claim that remote
viewing is a real phenomenon. If we study the science and apply our skills in a
scrupulously honest fashion, we will further prevail. I hope this article will
give some further insight into why remote viewing works and allow us to push the
boundary of understanding without doing violence to our credibility in the
process.
References:
Amit Goswami, Physics of the Soul, 2001
David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980
Stuart Hameroff, www.consciousness.arizona.edu
Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind, A Search for the Missing Science of
Consciousness, 1994
|