Dr Lloyd Rudy veridical NDE OBE... Smithy's article now available.

OK. I'll bite. Explain how the non-local information transfers to you. Or to Andy Paquette from across the globe. I'm interested.

When you look at adult OBE's more generally that have a veridical component, they tend to be 'local' (in the way I just suggested for the classic veridical NDE OBE) but sometimes they are 'distant', when they are, they tend to be OBE's with relations, friends etc.
 
When you look at adult OBE's more generally that have a veridical component, they tend to be 'local' (in the way I just suggested for the classic veridical NDE OBE) but sometimes they are 'distant', when they are, they tend to be OBE's with relations, friends etc.
I basically agree with that. So the information is transferred over a distance by your magnetic waves?
 
I basically agree with that. So the information is transferred over a distance by your magnetic waves?

nope.

Have to explain some other stuff first, before I explain that...

If you want to move some information forward in time, so you can access it again in say a few days, a month etc, what might you do to move it forwards?
 
Record it.

Yep, and it seems to me, the only way to do that (so you can usefully re-access it) is to record it in spatial patterns... ink on paper, magnetic stripes on tape, paint on a canvas, dots on CD, a carved piece of wood, a pattern of charges on a flash drive. However you achieve it, if you want to move access to your information forward in time, it always seems to need to be stored spatially.

Dunno if you agree with that?
 
Yep, and it seems to me, the only way to do that (so you can usefully re-access it) is to record it in spatial patterns... ink on paper, magnetic stripes on tape, paint on a canvas, dots on CD, a carved piece of wood, a pattern of charges on a flash drive. However you achieve it, if you want to move access to your information forward in time, it always seems to need to be stored spatially.

Dunno if you agree with that?
Basically, for the sake of the conversation I can agree. Although I can store it also in memory. And I'm not sure that involves a spatial component.
 
We know that the brain can remain 'energized' into cardiac arrest. It's not irreversibly dead, but it will generally die without intervention. The organism may be behaviorally unconscious during cardiac arrest, but it's cells may still be alive, and resuscitation may reverse the dying process. Most significantly Borjigin has demonstrated not just continuing activity in the brains of rats up to 30s, but highly synchronous activity.

It's vital to my ideas that there is a reduction in power of the experients endogenous EM field, allowing normally weaker external fields to synchronize the network, so that it can continue to process external sensory data intersecting it. As the ability of the network to synchronize fails the objective OBE comes to an end, and I suspect the 2nd mechanism continues to process any fields intersecting it whilst it remains viable.



Those cases all seem veridical, with recall of information that the patient should not have been aware of. But it's not clear how, I'm suggesting an explanation.

Max, they don't ...seem veridical... they were veridical... and not remotely attributable to your theory. It's your desire to wave them away but there are too many now. Might it be time to put your theory into storage ?

Goodnight, Danger Fruit, goodnight Far from here......
 
Last edited:
Max, they don't ...seem veridical... they were veridical... and not remotely attributable to your theory. It's your desire to wave them away but there are too many now. Might it be time to put your theory into storage ?

Goodnight, Danger Fruit, goodnight Far from here......
Hey Tim,

I have in my possession data from multiple remote viewing sessions that I have personally observed. Some that I posted on this site, other more recent ones that I have not bothered to post (I view the "critical discussions" here as not so critical anymore, at least for me, lol). I am convinced, beyond any stretch of a reasonable doubt, that actual remote viewing--veridical perceptions--occurred (not lucky guesses, coincidence, law of large numbers, faulty recollection, or any of the other "usual suspects").

Years ago, I corresponded with Ed May about this (who according to Craig Weiler, who met May, is an atheist and a materialist). May is quite convinced that remote viewing occurs, and has some theory that it relates somehow to "shannon entropy" between brains. I leave it to science and advanced math to determine the exact "mechanisms" through which this phenomena manifests, but I am incapable (and admit so) of accepting that such mechanisms do not exist, or are illusory. If brains are indeed capable of producing this phenomena by themselves, without something called consciousness, then so be it. It is amazing. The fact that primordial ooze from the Big Bang arranged itself (by chance) in such a way as to develop into mechanisms to contemplate and understand the mathematical laws and physical characteristics required for their existence, is to me more amazing than the fact that remote viewing or psychic phenomena actually occur.

Cheers,
Bill
 
Last edited:
Basically, for the sake of the conversation I can agree. Although I can store it also in memory. And I'm not sure that involves a spatial component.

That's fine. For a load of other reasons that I won't go into here, my assumption is that the structure of the brain probably serves the same purpose. That it is a spatial network composed of dendrites, dendritic spines etc, that also allows you to move access to information forward in time.
It's an 'internal' plastic biological method of doing something similar to storing a pattern outside of yourself.

When you relay sensory data via nerves, say from your eyes to your brain, that process somehow causes neurons to fire in a repeatable pattern.

So neurons in the brain that we think process data from your eyes might fire in 'pattern A' when you see a yellow square, and fire in a different 'pattern B' when you see a red circle. If you are shown a yellow square again they fire like 'pattern A' again.

So to recap, I think all spatial patterns allow us to store access to information whether outside of our bodies, or within our brain. Allowing us to move information through time so that we can access it again in the future. And Nerves pass sensory data to the brain causing neurons within its spatial network to fire in repeatable patterns.

So... when we write a note to ourselves with ink on paper, to store some information so that we can access it in the future. What we have really done, is to create a spatial pattern outside of ourselves that is imbued with meaning (Note: I don't think the meaning is stored in the spatial pattern, the spatial pattern is just a way of accessing it). So that if you expose your senses to your written note again in the future, they will relay this data to your brain, which will cause neurons within your brains network to fire in a similar pattern. That's all, up to that point, nothing more.

I dunno if any of that makes any sense to you? I needed to explain these ideas first, before I try and explain why I think 'distant' veridical adult OBE's tend to be with family and friends.
 
Hey Tim,

I have in my possession data from multiple remote viewing sessions that I have personally observed. Some that I posted on this site, other more recent ones that I have not bothered to post (I view the "critical discussions" here as not so critical anymore, at least for me, lol). I am convinced, beyond any stretch of a reasonable doubt, that actual remote viewing--veridical perceptions--occurred (not lucky guesses, coincidence, law of large numbers, faulty recollection, or any of the other "usual suspects").

Years ago, I corresponded with Ed May about this (who according to Craig Weiler, who met May, is an atheist and a materialist). May is quite convinced that remote viewing occurs, and has some theory that it relates somehow to "shannon entropy" between brains. I leave it to science and advanced math to determine the exact "mechanisms" through which this phenomena manifests, but I am incapable (and admit so) of accepting that such mechanisms do not exist, or are illusory. If brains are indeed capable of producing this phenomena by themselves, without something called consciousness, then so be it. It is amazing. The fact that primordial ooze from the Big Bang arranged itself (by chance) in such a way as to develop into mechanisms to contemplate and understand the mathematical laws and physical characteristics required for their existence, is to me more amazing than the fact that remote viewing or psychic phenomena actually occur.

Cheers,
Bill

Thanks, Bill

I accept remote viewing, in fact that's what I believe happened to Max when he had his experience. But remote viewers brains are working. I can't see any way in the world for a piece of "dead" brain to do the same thing.

There's something else though. Remote viewers (as far as I know) do not see a real time, crystal clear "video clip" (shall we say) of their target. Is it not the case that they get "impressions" ....(and make a sketch of course) And they don't overhear conversations from miles away.

Sabom's patients

"I seen things just like I see them now, real clear" " I was at the ceiling and there are no ifs and buts about it" "I was looking down it was as real as hell"
 
Back
Top