I 6. Data Integration versus Meme Complexes versus Noise

 

Posted: November 15, 2003
Lian Sidorov 
jnlrmi@hotmail.com

Assuming correct integration is achieved prior to the session's end-point (such as S3 in the HRVG method), how dependable is the viewer's data from this point on, considering the basin of associations against which he/she now has to struggle? How can we balance context recognition against "meme complex identification"?

Lyn Buchanan has suggested (in FAQs on P>S>I website) that a monitor, in this situation, should keep moving the viewer against unknown aspects of the target (see below) What about unmonitored sessions? Should the viewer focus on general aspects which fit easily in the overall context (but which, for that very reason, could be attributed to the mind "filling in the blanks") or on unusual, idiosyncratic aspects (which might be a significant signature of the target, but might also represent noise having nothing to do with the signal?

 

Replies / References

See 

"Can The Viewer Ever Identify Things?" by PJ Gaenir and Lyn Buchanan
"Stray Cats and Other Symbolism"
by Lyn Buchanan
 
under PSI FAQ's
http://www.crviewer.com/crviewer/QandAIndex.asp
PJ Gaenir and Lyn Buchanan

 

Posted: November 15, 2003

The Essential Overlap Matrix: An Extension for a Remote Viewing Tool
Bill Stroud

Making a Stray Cat Prolific: Thesaural Imaging and Remote Viewing
Bill Stroud

Cassirer, on the Expressive Form of Mythopoetic Thought: A Foundation for Buchanan's Concept of Ambiance
Bill Stroud

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright 2000-2006 EmergentMind.org

This page was last modified on 07/13/07 . For questions or comments regarding this web please contact Lian Sidorov at lian@emergentmind.org

  

 

 

Hit Counter