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

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

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!

Are you paying attention, Don?

Rob

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

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

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

Quote:


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.