Thanks for posting this Phantasy Man.
Yes, Tom Campbell talks about some things to keep in mind here. Basically, it's the same what Bruce is telling (perceiver, interpreter etc.). Many points are of practical relevance, but still I'd like to make some comments of more philosophical nature, which as well, subtle and in the long run, could have practical consequences, too.


T.C.:
"The process of perception is the same in all reality frames (objective source with a subjective interpretation)"

Comment:
That's questionable. What is an "objective source" at all? It must be something without any interpretation, as any interpretation would turn it into something subjective. So, either there are entities with something like a "direct perception" (problematic), or the objective is this which is left unperceived. Then it's senseless to state that there "is" an objective source. The same problem occurs with KANTs "Critic Of Pure Reason", though KANT was more aware of this than T.C. seemingly is. KANT states that one cannot tell anything about the "things in itself", even "things" of course is already too much said, so at some points KANT called it just the "X" (or so). It remains problematic for KANTs own system, too.
------------------------------
T.C.:
"If our Physical world is really subjective why does it appear to be objective – the same to everyone? Answer: Because we all have nearly identical physiology (sensors). And, to a lesser extent, very similar cultures."

Comment:
Of course, but it is more complicated. The subjectivity is not addressed here. Even when we are of the opinion we perceive the same thing, we don't know what actually the other is experiencing. We may state we both see the color "blue" with a specified frequency, but what the other really is experiencing we'll never know for certain. If we hold this uncertainty for not true, we have to add an element of trust, for example something like "immediate evidence" . This would undermine the concept of subject-object, as it would implement a closer relationship of each consciousness to what is commonly called the "outer world" than is tolerated by the subject-object division.
----------------------------------------
T.C.:
"In NPMR, You experience through your consciousness, not through your senses."

Comment:
First, I'm not sure what's ment here. In the physical, physical senses are part of what we experience, but our consciousness, too. I guess he means in the physical there's another "filter" of interpretation, additional to our individual consciousness.
   But it's still superficious. Because basically, nothing has changed. Now, in the nonphysical, you could call "your consciousness" your senses. More so, I can't help but all our senses and/or it's output (to follow this simplistic system) is part of our consciousness isn't it? If it won't, well, we won't be conscious of it. That doesn't make sense.
   And, what does it mean when I "experience through" my "consciousness"? So there's me, and then there is my consciousness through which I perceive? Hmmm...
---------------------------------------

T.C.:
"Insignificant data is not tracked or stored. Ever notice things that you have seen 100 times but never recorded? Neighbor’s green shutters ; a comic book store. The finite resources of the larger consciousness system are not wasted on recording and displaying things that are not relevant to the purpose of the system."

Comment:
That's simply a non-backuped opinion. Additionally, there's no reason for "The finite resources of the larger consciousness system" not to be capable of storing everything what ever happens in the physical. This is very simple worded; what I want to point at is, we must consider that the physical is already a consciousness system, rather than to be a set of matter parts which is observed by some larger but limited consciousness saying "Nah, I guess that's not important, I throw it away" or "Oh, that's interesting, I'll keep that" .
------------------------------------
T.C.:
"Fear, Belief, and Inexperience are the primary constraints that keep you from experiencing what is actually there (the full content of the data). Not from experiencing at all, but from experiencing what is actually intended by the larger consciousness system to answer your specific intended query."

Comment:
Of course it's useful to become aware of how we're shaping our reality. But T.C. is heading towards the, or a sort of, truth ("the objective", "what is actually intended") while I can't see how this truth can be in any way received by an entity, when there is a subject-object split which requires perception and therefore an inevitable altering (the perceived thing isn't the thing itself).


Spooky

You know, as I said, there's much practical value in what you quoted of T.C.. But everytime he touches philosophy it's just superficious. Comments on your comments:
-------------------------------------
PM:
"Well, I think (from what I've understand), that this objective source is the "object".  Your consciousness exists and has a defined structure (objective).  What is subjective, is how you interpret it, is subjective."

Comment:
The concept is clear. But I hold it for naive. What is an "object" when everything we can know is just an interpretation? The answer is: Nothing. Because we would never know what of our knowings is matching the "object" and what not; and even this is too mildly expressed, an object cannot "be"; something can only "be" when there is someone who says that it's there, and then it isn't a pure object, but an object of someone's mind, and therefore subjective.
--------------------------------------------
PM:
"He means that here, to experience (not to observe) this physical reality, we need our senses to perceive it and interpreting it in your consciousness.  When you're in the non-physical, you don't perceive directly through your consciousness..."

Comment:
But then there's a problem: Is there no perception, but only experience in the nonphysical? This could mean two things: Either we don't have any informations of anything "new" or "outside" ourselves, or we would have (experience instead of perception) unbiased, direct access to what you called the object; but this would mean unfortunately the ceasing of the subject-object division, because a direct access, without a medium, would mean "be" the object, which in turn would annihilate the object because there's no subject anymore.
--------------------------------------------------

PM:
"Spooky, it's playing with words  Grin  Of course you could call consciousness the primary sensors, but it needs sub-sensors to perceive sub-reality.  Make sence?"

Comment:
Don't blame it on me, blame it on T.C.  So now, as you talk of sub-sensors, we again have perception and perceptors in the nonphysical (see above)? But then it's as I said, principally nothing has changed, only the specifics of the sensory system has changed.
----------------------------------------------------

PM:
"It's not about data of physical reality, it's about details of what it's perceived in the larger reality (non physical). "

Comment:
Then, what I've said would be even more valid. How could it be that there is an instance in the nonphysical (or beyond, I don't know) which  1. is, as following from T.C.'s words, unable to keep it's own data, unable to keep itself? 2. is filtering it's own information and throws a part of it away, how the heck should this take place? There even would be more resources necessary to judge the informations rather than just keep it I would think; as well, it would mean strictly linear time, as only when the past is lost, information can get lost.

------------------------------------------------

PM:
"Of course there is always subjective 'distortion'.  But if it's only 2%, we can easily get the good interpretation of what we're perceiving."

Comment:
Sure, but if we chose the subject-object model, we never know at what percentage we are.



Spooky

Hi Pedigree,

your example with the car is only half-right. Right is, there is an intersubjective constancy, so when I see a car (I have learnt that those things are named "car"), it can happen it drives away out of sight, and later I experience I see this thing and recognize it as the same car. Or I see similar things and call them "car", too; and other people do this, too. And they react similarly when a car with high-speed is approaching them, and so on. So far, so good.
   But now let's make a thought experiment. There is a person who, when we are experiencing something as "red", this person will experience this as "blue". But this person calls this color not blue, but  red, just as we do. Why is that? Because that person has just learnt from child on, that this color what this person is experiencing as "blue" everyone is calling "red". So, for this person it's "red", even while this person has a very different experience. There is no way to be sure what another person actually is experiencing. When other people react similarly to things as I do, I could guess that other people are experiencing similarly, but it remains just guessing. The reason why it all seems so "objective" is just this constancy in naming things and reacting to things, it is just learnt and convention, but we cannot be certain (in an apodictive-philosophical sense) that we experience similarly as someone else.

So, when you say "Our physics here on Earth have rules that make the subjective more objective" it's an assertion on weak ground. There's even a more profound reason why this is, (at least in the way you put it) not true. Think about this: I am ill, and I say "I feel ill". Now the objective part of this is when it is said: "Spooky is ill". Everybody can say that. It's an objective statement (it can be wrong, it can be true, but it's still an objective-type statement). But there's missing something, it's the fact that I am Spooky, and I am suffering from my illness. When another one says "I am ill", then it's obviously something different as if I said "I am ill". Because it simply is another person. We can try as much as we want, describe my illness scientifically etc., we still never can objectivate the statement "I am ill". It happens to ME. So, it turns out, the objective is this part of what we experience, which can be said by everyone without altering the meaning.
   I am of the opinion that every objective statement is stemming from a subjective, first-hand experience. The other way round, to state that there are objective-objects which affect us and then change into "only" subjective impressions is to make the second step before the first. Because we only can talk of our experiences, and not of pure objects. Objects are only conclusions from our experiences, they are constructed.

Spooky

For the most part, my non-physical experiences have served the purpose of helping my spiritual growth. When I read some of William Buhlman's books it seems that the same was true for him. It also seems the same was true for Robert Monroe, even though he ended up being a map maker sort. It seems as if Bruce also grew through his experiences, but the map maker factor seemed to be a bigger part of his experiences than what might be typical.

Not sure of, or don't know either, but thanks for the reply Spooky.