Many discussions on this board have focused on attempts to understand consciousness and the afterlife using science and analytical thought.  The postulate is, that in order for a theory to be valid, one must be able to show verifiable proof in a reproducible fashion, and logically prove the theory.

If one mentions personal experience, faith or other methods, usually the person espousing logical analysis will dismiss this and say "we can't have a meaningful discussion, if you're going in that direction."  I disagree with this statement, because sharing ideas and experiences, even if not supported in science is still valuable to me.

I was reading a declassified military manual on remote viewing earlier today, and I was struck by the way the military said that the analytical mind had to be bypassed in order for RV to work.  For those of you who don't know, remote viewing is the idea that there is a universal field or shared subconscious with limitless information about people places and things.  According to remote viewing theory, we can all access this field if trained properly, and then by focusing on geographic or personal coordinates we can "see" what is going on in a remote location.

I believe that we are all tapping into this field constantly, but not with certain intention and that our analytical minds are constantly playing the role of the interpreter or perceiver (as Bruce calls it) and for those reasons we do not usually control  the situation.

Here is a paragraph from the manual:

      " RV theory relies on a rather Freudian model of human consciousness levels. The lowest level of consciousness is paradoxically named the "unconscious." All this label really means is that that part of our mental processes we know as physical "awareness" or "consciousness" does not have access to what goes on there. It is apparently this part of the individual's psyche that first detects and receives the signal line. From here it is passed to the autonomic nervous system. When the signal line impinges on the ANS, the information is converted into a reflexive nervous response conducted through muscular channels controlled by the ANS. If so allowed, this response will manifest itself as an ideogram. At the same time, the signal is passed up through the subconscious, across the limen, and into the lower fringes of the consciousness. This is the highest state of consciousness from the standpoint of human material awareness. However, the normal waking consciousness poses certain problems for remote viewing, occasioned largely because of the linear, analytic thought processes which are societally enhanced and ingrained from our earliest stages of cognitive development. While extremely useful in a society relying heavily on quantitative data and technological development, such analytic thinking hampers remote viewing by the manufacture of what is known as "analytic overlay," or AOL. As the signal line surges up across the limen and into the threshold areas of consciousness, the mind's conscious analytic process feels duty-bound to assign coherence to what at first blush seems virtually incomprehensible data coming from an unaccustomed source. It must in other words make a "logical" assessment based on the impressions being received. Essentially, the mind jumps to one or a number of instantaneous conclusions about the incoming information without waiting for sufficient information to make an accurate judgement. This process is completely reflexive, and happens even when not desired by the individual involved. Instead of allowing wholistic "right-brain" processes (through which the signal line apparently manifests itself) to assemble a complete and accurate concept, untrained "left brain"-based analytic processes seize upon whatever bit of information seems most familiar and forms an AOL construct based on it."

For those of you interested, I can get you the reference for this free declassified manual for remote viewing.  To me, it is exciting to take ideas about consciousness creating reality, remote viewing accessing the greater reality, and put it into a unified theory of consciousness, and this great subconscious field of the "all there is," that we tap into.  

But the greater realization is that our overanalysis of data may actually block our spirituality.  The above military document alludes to this only for remote viewing.  But the greater picture is that the part of us that categorizes things, and uses logic may actually interfere with our deeper perceptions.  What say you all?

Matthew

Very intresting.

But, how did the goverment come to that conclusion, without using logic? and the analytical areas of the brain.

They could'nt, because they would just be imagining things.

Faith/personal experience, is interpreted logically, and once it is found to be logically plausable to the person, it is accept as a belief.

If the bible said, kill thy neighbour, and dis honour thy farther and mother, i dont think as many people would be christians,becuase the core instincts of our brain says it's wrong.

logic and the analytical mind, is a tool, which reduces the chance of us being led down the garden path. It stops us from putting our hand in the fire, more then once.

un controlled imagination is dangerous, logic keeps it under control.

i dont think logic should get in the way of spiritual growth, because without logic, there would be no way to prove the spirit actually existed (if it does at all).

Logic is the language of this dimension, i can envisage, the immagination/peoples experiences being equally valuble in another dimension, were we are less fragile, and were we can see what they saw.

For us to learn from each other, we must use a rule book, and that book is logic, for we can show each other using it, close to/the same result as the person who is giving the instruction gets.

Imagination, controlled by logic equals growth.

People who are not willing to use logic, and base there beliefs on pure imagination, are to gulable. but they probley have a motive to cling onto certain beliefs, because it gives them strength. logic is usually to harsh/un-attractive, and imagination grants your wish's.

Which would you find more attractive?, that you are a random collection of molecules with no purpose, or you are an immortal being, who will be granted whatever they want, once they finish a life cycle?

Spitfire,

Nice post, but I was not throwing away all logical or analytical thought.  I merely said that in order to interpret some of these spiritual areas, we must be cautious of our logical/interpretive side, or we simply won't make the connection.

The military had a secret RV division for years, to compete with Russia.  Interestingly enough, they made many discoveries and provided verified intelligence before there were drone planes or spy satellites.  The military did in fact make a a logical manual for performing remote viewing.  Of intereste though, in it they said that one should not use logic or interpretation in accessing this universal medium.

I firmly believe that in order to function in our reality we require logic, analysis and thought that can be supported.  My comments were directed at areas of accessing levels of connectedness that most human beings are unaware of; in those instances, being overanalytical seems to get in the way.  

I should also add that the suspension of logic in remote viewing is not felt to be the same as "letting your imagination run wild."  It is simply that the remote viewer is getting real information of images, etc.   And he/she is asked to turn off his/her interpretor or logical side and simply relate these images as they come up.


Matthew

wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2005 at 11:11am:

Spitfire, Nice post, but I was not throwing away all logical or analytical thought.  I merely said that in order to interpret some of these spiritual areas, we must be cautious of our logical/interpretive side, or we simply won't make the connection. The military had a secret RV division for years, to compete with Russia.  Interestingly enough, they made many discoveries and provided verified intelligence before there were drone planes or spy satellites.  The military did in fact make a a logical manual for performing remote viewing.  Of intereste though, in it they said that one should not use logic or interpretation in accessing this universal medium. I firmly believe that in order to function in our reality we require logic, analysis and thought that can be supported.  My comments were directed at areas of accessing levels of connectedness that most human beings are unaware of; in those instances, being overanalytical seems to get in the way.   I should also add that the suspension of logic in remote viewing is not felt to be the same as "letting your imagination run wild."  It is simply that the remote viewer is getting real information of images, etc.   And he/she is asked to turn off his/her interpretor or logical side and simply relate these images as they come up. Matthew

in terms of kicking certain areas of our brain aside to "experience" other dimensions, i would agree with you.

often people experience unusual things, when the brains process's are slowed down.

People who experience NDE's etc, are dis connected from there brain(or thats what you would believe).

Nde's are often considered far more valuble in terms of proving the afterlife then OBE'S are.

with RV it tends to be clips of infomation, im guessing because you cant slow the brain down enough, because it is needed for bodily functions.

If the slowing down of the brain process's equals the slowing down of the logic center, then it is possible it is required for logic to be put aside.

i think it would be more likely that the reason why it is easier to do RV/OBE'S etc, is because the reciever (brain) is slowed down, thus allowing the signal to venture off into different areas. Thus giving freedom of movement and abnormal experiences. lack of Logic just being a side affect of the brain not working at 100% power.

Hi Doc, I resonate with your remote viewing article in comparison with Bruce's description of the interpretor part of the brain/C1.

wow. it's neat u would put this up for all to read too!  as I recall, Bruce would say to gently push the interpretor part away to allow perception to expand..the interpretor has a job, but it does get a little overconfident at times to supply helpfulness. I'd say the left and right sides of the brain work within balance in that case, if we can study the interaction to work towards that balance. one wouldn't want to be accused of using just 10% of the brain they say! lol. getting off topic..but there have been cases where people function quite well with half a brain cut out. oh horrors..we are not our brains.
getting back on topic, I heartily endorse remote viewing as an experiment.
heres my experience with the interpretor versus the actual object.
there are numerous internet experiments just for the adventure of it.
this is just one experiment. picked a number out of many of an object to view. closed my eyes and suspended myself into a grainy blackness of the mind and waiting to see if any images might come forth. the instructions were to ask about color, smell, texture of feeling, sound associated, just run down a list..see what happens. took several seconds and something white on the inner eye began to form quickly in the blackness. my interpretor quickly tried to tell me what it was. something with a top and a bottom and this top and bottom opened and it was a white color; my interpretor said it looks a little like a toilet seat turned to the side viewpoint but it can't be that. my interpretor tried it's best and that was all I got for that number. went to look at the number to see if I was even close..there on the page was a pic of a dolphin's mouth coming up out of the water with a big open smile on it's face; it's lips were white and it was slightly turned to it's side view, is why my "toilet seat" was off center. HAR!!!!
poor interpretor. it tries SO hard to understand. I just cracked up so bad when I saw the picture as I saw I had been so close, I had gotten part of the picture and knew I could pursue this if I wanted and get better. u all should see these wonderful remote viewing websites/forums, people are doing this and blowing themselves away!
http://images.bravenet.com/common/images/smilies/dolphin.gif

Thanks, Doc. Yu da man!

Rob

Are you paying attention, Don?

Rob

All I can say is that my deepest understandings have been clearer and more certain than anything I've thought up. In fact, I can't recreate the understandings by thinking about them. Not even close.

Therefore, I strongly believe that there is a way of understanding that goes way beyond what the linear thought by thought mind can come up with.

The linear thought by thought mind is good at making mistakes. I know that my linear thought by thought mind has made a bunch of them.

Hi people,

Spitfire wrote:

"i dont think logic should get in the way of spiritual growth, because without logic, there would be no way to prove the spirit actually existed (if it does at all)"

Basic things are not provable, not in a scientific-objective way. You can't even prove that you exist (could be everything is made up).

DocM's post:
 I think, similar as Alysia, the essence of that military agency paper is indeed what Bruce told about the perceiver/interpreter.
 My understanding (well, interpretation) of what Bruce tells is that there is an undistorted perception of an undistorted object. To have any remembering of this pure perception we must give it a name, a label, a "what is it".
In this model every remembering is affected by our interpretations. The more unlike the pure thing is compared with the physical environment of the viewer, the bigger the danger of distortions caused by the interpreter. The more similar, the more probable it is our interpretations "meet" the pure object. This is found again and again in remote viewing experiments. If the viewer is sent to an object which is not familiar for the viewer, often it is misinterpreted as another object which is similar to it and familiar to the viewer.
A bit different approach to this is if we take expectations and intents into it. In Bruce's model those would be part of the interpreter. If one believes RV is impossible, results will actually worse than if one believe that it is easy to do. In many self-exploring workshops this is one of the first things to diminish: Doubts and other disturbing thoughts and attitudes. After some affirmative words (tales of own experiences, presentation of an accepted system of mind for example) often participants are told to watch very carefully their surrounding, to watch everything, because all could have a personal meaning. And this really does change perception, if one is willing to follow those instructions.
 The military agency's approach to this field is simply practical. To get the best results, it isn't recommended to permanently doubt. What I would not do is to connect the word "rational" with the opinion "RV is impossible". "Rational" for me in this regard means to look openly and in controlled circumstances what results we can get out of a RV-setup.

Spooky

Matthew,

I believe I've had more psychic and mystical experiences than almost anyone on this site.   I've posted descriptions of many of them over the years.  Any one who knows me well eventually hears my mantra: "In life theological understanding is the booby prize, because it gives you just enough spirituality to inoculate you against the real thing."   Many of my psychic pronouncements were made because I relaxed my inner censor and just blurted out something on impulse that I had not planned to say.   But only when my claims were later verified did I feel confident that I had tapped a valid source of paranormal knowledge.

Nonrational experiences must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny when they produce important claims that seem falsifiable or claims that contradict those of analogous experiences.  But this is the more important question: can the mystic shift gears and subject his experiences to rigorous critical scrutiny without inadvertently shutting down his capacity to have more mystical experiences?  We humans tend to constantly shift in and out of balance.  If forced to choose, I'd prefer the mystical path. It is for that reason that I will soon gradually phase out my posts on this site-at least until my mystical life has been brought back up to speed.

Don

Don,

Keep posting, both mystical and analytical posts.  We are all joined here to share and take ideas from each other to refine our own thoughts.  Your contributions are a key to a unified theory of consciousness and the afterlife.

Already, I myself have played around with and discarded many ideas thanks to many postings on these boards.  But I keep at it, taking what works for me, discarding what does not.  Sharing with everyone.  

I hope you do too.  The interplay between all here is important.

Matthew

Hi Doc-
I wonder if that author was paid by the word, or trapped in a publish or perish net. What was said is that ideas arise spontaneously from a place not readily acessible, forming images in the stream of awareness, and that mind set and beliefs interfere with clear analysis. BFD. Where's the science?

Scientific sounds often hide a lack of scientific thinking. (I'm good at that, unfortunately. It's something we learn in grad school, and then try to escape later.) A truly scientific investigation of any subjective phenomena is possible, and lots of people are still spending their time to try to categorize subjective experiences. I have no problem with them. In fact, the scientific method could properly be used to investigate "intelligent design" as opposed to Darwinian biogenesis, and if done properly I'd have no problem there either.

The objection I have is to those who cling to "scientific facts" to either "explain"  in absolute terms, or to deny alternatives because "science knows better". A recent example in my life was sitting with a friend in a very still house, and as we went in and out of meditative states, we could see her plants "move".  They certainly don't "move" in everyday space-time, so where is this experience?

The "motion" of plants is common and well known. People often agree on perceiving it, yet the room remains still, and a camera can't see any change. "Scientific" types tell us that they can't see it, so it must be unreal, and they negate the experience. (How rude!)

Some "scientific critics" attempt to use available, but unrelated, "scientific ideas" in an effort to justify things in their preferred mode.  One example is the idea that somehow our DNA/RNA patterns can be responsible for people who are reborn recalling that a neighbor owes them money, or that they were once residents of some city etc. In most cases there is no possibility of genetic transmission by which this might have happened, but having no other available options, people prefer a familiar idea to becoming open to the possibility of discovery.

I'd love to do serious rsearch in these areas, but to do that requires an academic setting with lots of available subjects,  plus a permissive Dean, while I'm simply a single therapist in private practice. However, if anyone else is interested in that kind of career, I urge you to go for it.

dave

Dave,

Thanks for writing.  This was a government manual.  We don't know the science behind it, but we do know that the government wants direct results, and to cut to the chase in manuals.  I'm sure many hours were logged in with "hits" and "misses" before the guidelines were written by the remote viewers.

M

Gee Dave

that was interesting. But I thought they were just describing the process by which Bush et. al. discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2005 at 6:45am:

Dave, Thanks for writing.  This was a government manual.  We don't know the science behind it, but we do know that the government wants direct results, and to cut to the chase in manuals.  I'm sure many hours were logged in with "hits" and "misses" before the guidelines were written by the remote viewers. M

good point doc, the goverment when it comes to spying etc, require very good evidence to plow money into it. But the original RV experiements were terminated, the ones done during the cold war. I think it was because RV's accuracy is quite poor.

on a serious note, I'm not sure how far the scientific method will take you any more.  There's math, where it is rather difficult to produce b.s. Then there's physics and chemistry. It works when you can clearly define your terms.  Physics does better here...but it falls apart after that. Medicine isn't as scientific as it is purported to be. And the halls of biotech are filled with so-called scientists who use an analagous form of the above psycobabble to defend their turf. You really need to be able to define your terms clearly.

But then as you point out, terms get used and abused. Throw in a little comments about DNA and it must be scientific. What the heck is 12-stranded DNA? When Science and Nature start publishing pictures of 12-stranded DNA, then maybe we can talk about Indigo kids.

Does anyone know if Joe McMoneagle proposes a model of how RV works? or does his method of teaching imply a certain model? His website isn't too informative and I've never read his books, though he does mention a René Warcollier, who did early work on RV.

Is there any accepted model that has a signal in the ANS crossing some "limen"? Is that consistent with anything accepted in neurobiology-psychology?

[quote author=Berserk link=board=afterlife_knowledge;num=1135271744;start=0#9 date=12/22/05 at 20:15:23]Matthew,

Nonrational experiences must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny when they produce important claims that seem falsifiable or claims that contradict those of analogous experiences.  

Um, why is that, Berserk?  Mystical is mystical.  By definition, such an experience can not be subject to "rigorous scrutiny."  It is purely subjective, not given to rational analysis.

Celticprince

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for the interesting post.  I've had a renewed interest in RV ever since Don mentioned to me that this may be the way in which I experience the astral... what I call having vision flashes or mini movies as an observer rather than a participant.

Dave, you have an awesome way of putting things into words!  Your right and I also think that when we rely on other's critical opinions too much we fall into the trap of discounting our own experiences as "unreal" or chalk it off to imagination.

Similar to your experience I can look at objects from a higher frequency and see movement within them similar to water just before it begins to boil.  Most people would think me looney tunes, but hey... I see what I see and others have described the same or similar experiences.  It is good to know that I'm not the only one who is looney tunes. haha!  

Lucy, I read Joe's first book several years ago.  As I recall it did have some exercises to use for RV that I did try and was successful with at the time.  I think this is a book I may have loaned to someone. I might see if they still have it as I'd like to read it again now.

Thanks again for this thread Matthew!

Love, Kathy :-)

wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2005 at 7:16am:

Gee Dave that was interesting. But I thought they were just describing the process by which Bush et. al. discovered weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Catty, but apt. XD