JNLRMI Vol. II Nr.2  July 2003

© 2003

In our historic quest to understand the basic nature of reality we have pushed the limits of mathematics, built massive research installations like particle accelerators and photomultiplier chambers and engineered complex environmental conditions in order to study the emergence of life.

This technological race has been an exhilarating, wildly successful adventure in its own right, one which is unlikely to slow down in the next century. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that one aspect of reality experimental physics is poorly equipped to probe in its present form is consciousness. The "dirty secret" of modern science is that experimenter effects (the influence of conscious observers and their expectations on the outcome of physical tests) are inextricable from most, if not every type of protocol we can conceive of [1,2,3]. This leaves us in a position to wonder what the shape of basic experimental science will be in the centuries ahead, once the problem of consciousness is fully recognized. Chances are, it will look very much like a hybrid of contemporary physics, biology and parapsychology - probing the interface between matter, spacetime and mind with increasing precision, allowing us to understand the subtle causal loops between intent and outcome - the shaping of reality by our collective consciousness.

In this follow-up to his January 2003 interview (see JNLRMI II[1], http://www.emergentmind.org/mcmoneagle.htm), we have asked Joe to go into further detail about some of the studies he has been involved in over the past two and a half decades and to share some of his personal conclusions - especially with respect to the temporal paradoxes pervading the body of modern psi research literature.

____________________

LS:   You have said that it is just as easy to remote view a future event as a past one. Could you briefly describe some experiments confirming this? Specifically - have there been any studies or meta-analyses looking for a possible decrease in accuracy/reliability of the RV data with increasing separation between the RV session and targeted event?

JM:   Under research conditions I've produced remote viewing on targets not yet selected which are statistically the same in terms of accuracy as those done in real time. I've done numerous targets in past time operationally (tracking agents, describing events that might have occurred, etc., prior to definitive proof they actually did) and these too are equally striking in terms of accuracy and reliability. The only difficulty in violating time is properly tasking the target.

Q2.   Most of the published experiments looking at anticipatory (pre-cognititve) effects involve a physiological response, like skin conductance, to some type of stimulus (i.e. calm versus emotional image being flashed on a computer screen). What type of specific information do you feel can be elicited from such models, and do you think that precognition studies involving standard RV targets with descriptive responses might be better suited for probing the mechanism of anticipatory cognition?

JM:   I would first correct a misunderstanding within the above comment. In the original studies, there was no interest in a specific direction of arousal, e.g. calm to emotional movement. There was only interest in whether or not there was movement from the common or static state. So, it could have been a reaction to a significantly calming picture, e.g. going from an aroused state to a calm state, or it's opposite, e.g. going from a calm state to an aroused state emotionally. In either case, there can be, and are sometimes significant differences in the Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) of the subject.

The original studies were done using a significant electrical charge randomly delivered to the subjects. There was a wide distribution with regard to the degree of discomfort these electrical stimulations had from subject to subject. One might respond at the lowest setting, and you might begin to smell the skin burning on the next subject before you would get any kind of response. It was dependent on individualized pain thresholds and a person's ability to withstand discomfort, or adapt to it.

Many of the follow on studies were done with pictures intended to induce an emotional response. These were found to be not as effective as hoped for a number of reasons. First, what is emotionally effective or disturbing to one person might not have a like effect on someone else, secondly, as soon as you begin dealing with emotion laden pictures you are dealing with a large variance between emotional levels within individuals, from picture to picture, and finally, many were not affected by the pictures as they had already become culturally desensitized to their content by their specific source of media.

Given these problems and there inherent lack of stability, they were replaced with studies that now use unexpected bursts of sound as a stimulant to produce a Galvanic Skin Response (GSR). These have proven to be very stable in labile subjects. These studies have been on-going for a considerable amount of time and have not yet been published. They are being done by Dr. Edwin May and James Spottiswoode of the Laboratories for Fundamental Research. When completed, they will be published and the data accessible to those who wish to review it.

I would never recommend the use of remote viewing targets to measure such events, as these events are taking place within spans of only seconds or parts of seconds. Since it is impossible to know when someone is actually remote viewing and when they are not in terms of collecting data, pre-stimulus studies vary significantly from precognitive in that most pre-stimulus studies are not cognitive to begin with. By necessity they must be non-cognitive in order to meet the double blind experimentation protocol. Specifically since the human biological reaction being studied occurs "prior to the actual decision being made to create the causative stimulus in the first place."

Q3  So, just to clarify this point, how would you differentiate between "pre-cognition" and "pre-sentiment"?

JM:   In presentiment as I understand or use the term there are no future mental images. It is based on non-cognitive reactions to a randomly generated sound. There is a reaction that goes out to as far as eight seconds prior to a decision to make a sound.

Q4. What is currently the best way to quantify the accuracy and reliability of a standard, descriptive RV session?

Once the remote viewing is done, the results or statements taken from the remote viewer are compared to what is already a part of the target package (the statements of expectation and import already written down and stored with the photograph). A determination is made of what percentage the remote viewer said that was expected as important and relevant to the targeted photograph, and what did the viewer say that was not relevant or pertinent to the targeted photo. One needs to also look at what was said that was wrong about the target or not material to the target as well. From this algorithm, one can derive a resultant value (we call it a Figure of Merit.) For obvious reasons, a figure of Merit of 60% or better would be considered a very good result. A figure of Merit of 95% would be considered exceptional and very rare. Statistically under double blind studies within laboratories, Figure of merits above 80% occur probably less than 25% of the time.

Q5. Over the past 30 years there have been a series of studies in which EEG synchronization has been observed between a "sender" presented with a particular sensory stimulus (or simply deciding to emit qi) and a shielded, distant percipient. In general the brainwave synchronization occurred within a few seconds from the sender stimulus. What recent improvements on this type of experiment are you aware of and what is the inferior temporal limit of synchronization - ie what is the fastest time for such remote effects?

JM:    I can't comment on this effectively because I've never seen an experiment done with Qi that included a concurrent control subject. Which of course does not mean one does not exist. The only experiments that I have seen were experiments that relied on the "sender" to state when Qi was being sent, which negates the findings in reference to shared energy states, as it presents a solution that might only be either a synchronistic or chance effect, or a possible effect produced through a psychic interaction and not one of energy transfer (in the cases I witnessed, it is possible the sender psychically selected the specific times to find the synchronistic effect present in the receivers EEG.) Hence I do not feel qualified to answer the above.

Q6. Have there been any studies in which a similar set-up is used, but correlating the galvanic skin response in the two subjects, where the "sender" is an individual being shown randomly assigned calm and emotional pictures as above? If so, how does the EEG and GSR correlations compare and does the recipient ever anticipate the sender?

JM:    I'm unaware of such an experiment. In past experiments where senders and receivers have been used in an attempt to transmit information about a location or picture, it has been found that there really is no requirement for a sender. Statistically, the same amount of information and the same degree of accuracy occurs whether a sender is present or not. In only a few of those cases was equipment used to monitor the sender and receiver and there were no significant synchronicities between the two. Again, I must reiterate the difficulty in such cases where a sender and a receiver is being used is in knowing absolutely when the transmission of information has or is actually taking place. Because one might have an expectancy that it should take place only at a specific time, does not guarantee that is the only time the transfer might take place. Also, it has never been fixed as to how much time is required for the transfer of X-bits of information since no one knows if information is indeed transferred, or if transferred the amount of information that is or isn't transferred over Y-Length of time.

Q7 . What do you think produces the specific response in the recipient, since it has been shown that statistically they are not consciously aware of the time of transmission?

JM:    You just answered your own question. In fact, there may be no requirement for information transfer, if the recipient may at some future time know what the actual answer will be. They may then in fact already know from the outset and have no need for information transfer, only need for a circumstance to exhibit the information knowledge at some point within time/space.

Q 8. Time displacement (such as today's RV session showing elements from a future target) appears to be a common problem in RV. What do you believe is the most common cause for this?

JM:     One problem would be the inability of a remote viewer to relate the specifics of targeting expectation to a specific future time/date. This would imply that the targeting mechanism is "screwed up," has not well defined time/date boundary lines.

Q 9. Does displacement have more to do with poor tasking/feedback, or with a possible convergence of meaning/jumping on the wrong track, or is the future target simply "more interesting" to the subconscious?

JM:    I would believe it is the problem of poor tasking first, and secondarily bad feedback methodology. I say it that way, because bad feedback methodology affects the inexperienced remote viewer more than it will the experienced remote viewer - unless the feedback is the "tasking."

Q 10.    In Miracles of Mind (p. 124), Targ states that "the sooner the participants get their feedback, the greater the hit rate" (at least for forced-choice experiments). Do you agree with this finding and what do you believe is the reason for it - simply increased motivation from positive reinforcement?

JM:    I do not agree with this statement entirely. That is his observance, but there are too many violations of it to make it a fixed expectation or even a necessity for good to excellent remote viewing. I've waited over sixteen years for feedback on some of my remote viewing which proved to be exceptionally accurate.

Looking at feedback you have to understand that it might be critically important to someone who doesn't know what they are doing (immediate feedback) since in the learning state it gives a direct cause and effect relationship to what one perceives and then says. Having said this. Someone who understands what they are doing and understands how RV probably works - feedback or when it is provided is not as important. In fact, it is not even necessary.

Q 11. What can one do to strengthen signal line?

JM:     The best way to improve signal line (if there really is such a an animal, which I'm more and more inclined to doubt), is purifying intent and expectation regarding focus on a specific target of interest. Your assumption remains that there is some sort of emitter of information, some form of carrier or transporter of information, and some kind of receiver of information - because you have bought into the customary model that everyone [...] believes in. Delete your assumptions from the get go and point out to me where anyone has ever proven that any of those three items exist at all? In all probability they do not. Information in its own right exists within each of our universes because that is what we need to operate. It is mutually exclusive to all other universes. Our assumption, which may be incorrect from the outset, is that everyone's universes mix - which they probably do not. There is only an illusion that what I know is what you know and so forth and so on. Therefore, everything that I will ever have to know is already extent within my sealed universe (of experiences), and therefore resides within my own knowledge base. I have simply to disregard the necessity for a belief in space/time in order to access correct information anywhere within my universe. Something easily done, if one is willing to give up certain concepts regarding reality.

Q 12. In one of your books (The Stargate Chronicles) you mention successfully viewing a target prior to its random selection from a pool of available targets. Could you describe any formal experiments that you are aware of, in which such precognitive RV was successfully demonstrated? (And given the non-deterministic way in which the target is being chosen, after the session, how do you make sense of one's ability to access this information?)

JM:    This has been done on numerous occasions under laboratory conditions but there are no formal studies that I'm aware of that report only on that aspect. Based on those occasions where it has been done (remote viewing before random target selection), there appears to be no difference in accuracy or dependability from viewer to viewer. In fact, when the target is randomly selected can be totally transparent to the remote viewer and they never need to know when it was actually selected as it has no observed effect on outcome - only observed effect on the observer of the experiment itself.

Because a decision hasn't been made to create an event, doesn't mean you can't describe the event. Because it is still within your knowledge base. It's no more removed from your perception than the event that occurred but which you were not present to observe (past event).

Q 13. In RVS* p 30 you say "timing, or projecting when something is going to happen or happened, is something RV is not generally very good at". Does that also apply to "timing" as a function of other events - say something will happen after X but before Y? And why do you think this is so difficult - does it have anything to do with time not appearing linear but "already there" and just a matter of perspective?

JM:   It happens simply because there are no references in remote viewing for exact time other than what can be inferred from the materials presented (e.g., the viewer can't see a watch or calendar at the target site, so time is implied by what the viewer might collect and state in information. I see ice on the ground - hence it must be after a certain date and before a certain date at that specific target location, etc.)

Q14. On page 152-3 of the same book, you state: "most remote viewers who target something in the present usually provide some information that is pertinent to the target in the past and future"; and "One thing can be said about real time targets: they may predominantly lie within real time, but they will usually contain near past and near future information as well." What does this tell you about the way information is "catalogued" or distributed in our consciousness?

JM:   It tells me nothing about consciousness. What you've stated above does not necessarily happen all the time. A well designed or tasked target is usually well fixed in space/time. A poorly designed or tasked target has a tendency to appear slewed in time either because there is an inappropriate assumption about the event or target within the time/space context, or the response requires time to be appropriate. Such as, TASK: Describe the touchdown in the fourth quarter. RESULT: You get three people in two different sets of colors scoring three different kinds of touchdowns, because the assumption is there will only be one touchdown in the first place. Or, TASK: When did he die? RESULT: A description that covers two hours, because the accepted interpretation of "dying" is a process over time and space, and not necessarily fixed.

Q 15. It seems that one can provide a very specific date and time, or timing intervals, as part of a target - and in that context they will accurately pinpoint the target as desired (ie tell me what you see there on May 15, 2003 at 10:05). On the other hand, trying to time an event through an RV session is pretty unreliable. Why this "asymmetrical loss of meaning" in the two translations?

JM:   It would be near impossible to time/date an event using remote viewing in the way you suggest above, since most events occur over time and across some space. Events that are relatively short enough to frame as you framed the above you would simply target that way; e.g. describe the significant events immediately surrounding the bullet striking and killing JFK. In this case, the striking bullet is the defining event in space/time.

Q 16. Do you ever perceive change at a target as a continuous process, or is it only as still shots in response to tasking different time windows?

JM:   I perceive both simultaneously. It's part of what makes the partitions within an event of magnitude more difficult to describe, as well as their relationship to one another.

Q 17. Do you ever perceive anything like a superposition of realities?

JM:    If you mean seeing one probability versus another, then the answer is no. There is only one reality and that is the one that occurs, anything else is a supposition or assumption and never correct in relationship to the target.

Q 18. Have you ever had to view a targeted event both before and after it took place - and was there any difference in how you perceived it - specifically between a probable event and an accomplished one?

JM:    Yes. I've done this many times. I've either been right or wrong about the event, before or after. If I described an event before it actually happened, then I was right. If I described an event that never occurs, then I'm simply wrong. There is always only one event - the one that happens. There are no other realities. In terms of multiple probabilities, there will always be many. But, they have no bearing in reality other than flights of fancy.

Q 19. In the early phases of RV training, at least, the reaction to any given question/sub-task is new bits of information that, ideally, fall into place to add further detail to the emerging mental picture of the target. This information is "known" - flashing in one's mind like a concept or sensory perception. Is there a point at which such probing of a target becomes less fragmentary - i.e. when moving spatially around a target, or moving along its timeline, begins to be perceived as a continuous, integrated phenomenon?

JM:   If you mean like seeing the target as though you were standing right there and observing what was happening, the answer is yes. These are exceptionally rare events. You can tell when they occur because the results are in the high 97-99 percentile in terms of accuracy and reliability. They almost never happen.

Q 20. If so, is there a sense that certain moments/events along an object's timeline are better defined/ more "gravitationally attractive" than others?

JM: No. In the case of near perfection in remote viewing (pictographic perfection) it's either all or nothing.

Q 21. There seems to be a consensus in the RV literature that motion/change per se is seldom detected, if at all (IEEE symposia p 46, 47). Observing a target's evolution typically requires sampling the target at different intervals and analytically integrating the information - but nothing like a "flow of time", or continuous transformation at a material level, ever seems to be PERCEIVED in RV. Has that been your experience?

JM:   I would disagree with that. Most of the time, the questions being sought suggest that fixed time pictures are required to meet whatever requirements are being looked for. Almost without exception, targeting is specifically pointed at a fixed point in time/space - an event, a person, an object, etc. If you wanted flow in time, it is just as easily targeted as anything else; e.g., I once asked a physicist if he wanted the wave form of his target or the particle itself, which of course he understood. I gave him both and both were correct.

Q 22   Does the minimal size of the perceptual window (that is, the flash-like impression perceived in each "tasting" of the target) tell you anything about the rapport between Time as in our routine conscious experience and Time, or the lack thereof, in RV? More specifically - Pitkanen's Topological Geometrodynamics posits a universe that undergoes 10^39 quantum jumps/sec, so that the typical mental image, which lasts about 0.1 sec, is an average experience over 10^38 q-jumps. Perhaps the impression of continuous change and time flow that permeates our normal experience is a result of this very coarse, wide perceptual window - whereas the typical "reality sampling" in RV is on the level of a single quantum jump, which indeed would preclude the observation of time as a linear flow. In fact, this could perhaps be likened to the mechanism of a stroboscope: if the frequency of perceptual sampling is equal to that of universal q-jumps, then the experience appears static; if it is lower, then the universe seems to evolve smoothly in one direction, whereas a higher frequency results in an impression of "reversing time's flow".

JM:   Yes, that is correct. The perception to a viewer therefore is that time does not change and the view remains the same. It is a way of bit sampling the target. The problem however is that, in some cases, it sometimes allows access to very little data.

Q 23. In Mind Trek, p. 100, you suggest thinking of RV as the mind "cycling in or out of a different level of power", or "information stream", which you describe as possible a form of "quantum information storage". Do you still believe this paradigm to be appropriate? Do you feel that different states of consciousness correspond to different frequencies of cycling and analytical processing, that perhaps this may account for the phenomenological difference you have described as characterizing RV versus OBEs (out-of-body experience)? Have you ever had a sense of "reversing time's flow" while in an altered state?

JM:    I'm not sure I understand this question or the use of my quote within it. In Mind Trek, p. 100, which was written over ten years ago, my memory is that I was talking about dipping into and out of the time stream as it related to any specific target. That everything appears to me to be frequency related (to some extent), and that the depth of the dip, or it's duration may exclude or include specific forms of information that go toward the construct of what we call an answer to any specific problem. I didn't mean it to mean anything more than that. In terms of reversing times flow, time already flows in both directions. It's inherent in how time is constructed - everything just is, hence time is whatever we want to make of it.

Q 24  Let me try to summarize then. What you are saying seems to be that: 1. everything you will ever know is already contained in your universe, although not necessarily accessible to your conscious mind - that comes with the effort involved in RV, or is revealed spontaneously as in "precognitive" 2. "when" a given target event takes place relative to the experimental present is irrelevant, because all the information is already available; 3. other people's expectations and feedback should not affect your results, as long as you are careful to task yourself in a way which does not include these elements. 4. "making contact" with the target is more like flipping to the right page in your book than reaching anything in space and time. Is this an accurate synopsis so far?

JM:    Fairly accurate.

LS:    Now, I think one question to ask would be "how do you flip to the right page?" Or "why does the book open at a certain page", in cases of spontaneous precognition?

JM:    Normally as a result of "expectation" or "intent". In the case of precognition, especially spontaneous, it probably has a significant tie to one’s personal survival.

Q 25 . What about intrinsic differences (not subject-specific) between the targets? In principle, one could assign the same coordinate to two different targets by using differently "charged" pictures, to see what type of targets appear more prominently to the viewer (i.e. emotional, culturally significant, repetitive patters, motion, etc). The advantage would be that in this way one can use some form of internal calibration - since it's the same operator on the same session, any accuracy differences would be attributable to the targets themselves (ideally calibrated for all other parameters)...

JM:    [When it comes to] differentially charged targets - many tests have been done and the differences in Shannon Entropy account for the degree or amount of data that is produced about a target [see reports in the Journal of Parapsychology]. Notice I did not say anything about accuracy here. The AMOUNT of data significantly changes with the change in Shannon Entropy present within a target. However, having said this, the importance of a target could alter the outcome as well. With some hierarchy of significance being unconsciously assigned relative to the remote viewer’s survival – how that might be gauged I haven’t a clue at this point, but it would be an interesting experiment.

Q 26    In terms of subject physiological states - what distinguishes an average session from an exceptional one? How would you characterize the difference between typical RV and the bilocation experience - and what, if anything is known at a physiological/metabolic level about the bilocation state? In particular, are there any significant findings with respect to brain oxygen consumption versus regional cerebral blood flow?

JM:   We did no formal studies to determine metabolic levels, brain oxygen consumption, or regional cerebral blood flow while in RV, Lucid Dreaming, OBE, or other markedly different mental states. So nothing is known about it physiologically. However, while experiencing an exceptional remote viewing experience and high order-95% accuracy range during what might be called a bilocation experience (seemingly being at the actual location or target, while simultaneously and actively describing it to someone in a different location), there are things that can be said about it subjectively. There is a very real sense of processing two locations simultaneously at one time. Both are robust sites, with depth, field, range, and color. Both are in real time cadence. Both can be manipulated.

Q 27    Which brain imaging techniques (i.e. SQUID, fMRI, ERP, etc) have been most useful so far in studying psi function and what are the main significant findings to date?

JM:    None of them have proven useful in defining differences between states. I've been subjected to all of them while remote viewing, sleeping, lucid dreaming, and in the OB state. In terms of studies, most were done in the mid to late 1980's and most were paid for by the government, so the government owns those studies and has not released the information as far as I am aware. Of the list, probably the fMRI has proven the be the best of the list.

Q 28.  In Mind Trek, chapter 17 you discuss something you call "a snap in reality": in this series of experiments conducted in 1982, you found that when targeting events characterized by a violent change of matter and/or a rip in space-time fabric (such as the detonation of a nuclear device or ignition of a nuclear pile) a sudden change in perspective always took place at the very instant of this catastrophic, "edge-of-reality" event.

This is perhaps the most significant and disturbing series of studies you have described in your books (at least from this interviewer's perspective). How much further has this been pursued (by you or others) since 1982 when these experiments took place? Do you believe that probing such targets through RV may open a significant gate toward understanding the connection between topology and consciousness - more specifically, that the fundamental nature of consciousness as a building block of reality, which has been posited by some of the greatest physicists of the past century, could be shown to be integral to the spacetime fabric of the universe?

JM:    It is a simple observation. The observation in its pure form by the way is that "when the current perspective no longer supports someone's ability to report on an event, the perspective changes to allow for it." In other words, if you can't see the tree falling in the forest because your perception is from 20,000 feet and captures only the forest, then your perspective goes to a point where you can observe it to be occurring." It may or may not have anything to do with the creation of reality or the overall fabric of the universe.

In other words, it may or may not have anything at all to do with safety or danger to human kind. But, it has everything to do with perspective or our ability to understand what we are seeing and perceiving.

Q 29. What other targets have been studied in which space/time is expected to break down (i.e. Planck length, the center of a black hole, pre-Big Bang inflationary period, etc). What do such sessions typically show? Is there any sense of perceptions we simply have no language for and does the mind automatically skip to a new perspective that is within our allowed range of existence because consciousness abhors a vacuum?

JM:   No, I think we simply skip to a new perspective so that we can understand what we are observing.An RV perception of a black hole incidentally is that nothing every actually falls into a hole per se. It is a defined area where matter is trapped by its own increasing inertia. So the black hole has not center, but it does have an edge, and the edge is infinite.

Q 30    Do you still believe that this sudden shift is a "safety mechanism which prevents us from being in the area of a reality-quake while or when it happens in a psychic sense", that "it is impossible for us to not exist - hence we just can't be where we can't exist"?

JM:    I recall implying this MIGHT be a reason, but I don't recall saying this is why we change perspective. I also have no recall of ever saying that nuclear chain reaction is the end of existence - it may in fact be the purest essence of reality and creativity. I don't know. Again, I think we just simply change location to permit understanding.

Q 31. Does this implicitly contain the conclusion that consciousness is inextricably entangled with space-time?

JM:    I would not make such a statement. I can see where someone would only understand that a connection exists between consciousness and time/space, simply because that is the observable we have available to us. But, to assume that is the extent of consciousness I wouldn't agree with. I believe we don't know the limits of consciousness and hence can't assume anything about it. Hence until proven otherwise, consciousness is limitless.

Q 32. Do you get the sense that there is an intrinsic limit to the amount of logic science can impose on reality - that at some point, as we become more familiar with existence in the extended form that RV makes possible, we will have to give up our cherished ideal of linear causal evolution of the physical universe? And if so, what should science focus on instead?

JM:    I've not yet seen anything that makes me want to abandon logic or the physical science rules of our reality. I've seen nothing that violates those rules. Everything I've experienced has only expanded on my current understanding of those rules. As things expand, so do the rules. I’ve watched as science expands to meet the challenges of tomorrow. There’s nothing wrong with science, as long as it remains open to possibility. The realm of the Paranormal can be a part of the scientific world. There are too many anomalies in the world for it not to be. Ignoring the anomalies, ignoring the paranormal, is simply an act of ignorance.

*****

1. Braud, William. Wellness implications of retroactive influence: exploring an outrageous hypothesis. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 2000 6(1):37

* Remote Viewing Secrets: a Handbook. Hampton Roads Publishing Co, Charlottesville, VA, 2000

___________________

The contents of this document are copyrighted to Joseph and Nancy McMoneagle and should not be reproduced without their written permission. All rights reserved.