Week #2 Conversation


#41

I thought it was hilarious since you were essentially testing the reviewers on their knowledge of the questions and their order. :slight_smile:

As for the words you didn’t get, feel free to PM them to me, or if you can’t write them, the word before it (or after).


#42


#43

@ExploringAstronaut

Your input is helpful! Thank you!

What words were special? If you don’t know what they might be or how to spell them, what was the preceding question so I can better identify where you might have not understood the words?

Do you think longer pauses would help? If so, where?

Also I ask these questions because we are an international group here: Is English your first language, and what is your native language? If you learned English, how did you learn or who taught you? If you learned English as a second language, what kind of accent did any of your instructors have: “American”, English, Australian, Canadian, Irish, or other accent?

@SaintSovereign I want to be clear, I don’t think we should re-record the audio yet. I think we need more input. But I think it’s important to start collecting ideas to improve it.


#44

And to put an extra fine point on it, you are right: if I was in your room asking you questions, you would not be alone.


#45

Awesome you caught that one, I missed that particular nuance. :slight_smile:

I have to admit that even with my vocabulary some of the words puzzled me and quite a few I couldn’t quite place into context so I wasn’t able to answer. I doubt a lot of people can tell you what amorphous means.

Of course, the more words we have to describe something, the more accurate our impression becomes. So I like it. Even though I instantly got an image of Mike Oldfield on the question if it was tubular.


#46

@DarkPhilosopher

Could you please list what words or phrases or sections might have been perplexing in the audio?


#47

@RVconsultant Updated.


#48

@ExploringAstronaut

Thank you for the update, and thank you for doing it so quickly!

When you typed “/” what does that mean?

Also can you please tell me where you posted your answers to my questions about your language? I’m thinking you are a native English speaker but I want to make sure my assumption is accurate.

One more thing for now, perhaps when you scanned or photographed your results, the ink was made to look blue. But if you used blue ink, could you please use black.

At some point, I may encourage people to use colors for their drawing, but for now please everyone use black ink. The reason is to reduced variables and distractions. When RV was first started, they used grey rooms, and it’s just what it sounds like. The whole room was grey. Grey carpet. Grey walls. Grey chairs. Grey tables. The paper was white. The ink in the pens was black. They did this to reduce distractions.

You don’t need a grey room. For now, just make sure your desk/table is clear, the walls near your desk/table are bland, and please use black ink.


#49

@ExploringAstronaut

I wanted to comment on a few things based on your updates:

round? Yes (Meaning it wasnt a ball or something)

Round could be one way to describe a sphere, circle, or ball. They are all round. On a more refined teaching point: Remember at this point we stick to adjectives (such as round) rather than wondering about what it might be (such as a ball).

steep? (One of the words I didnt know) No

Steep could refer to height, or it could refer to an angle that rises abruptly or sharply. For example, if you were describing a ramp that was inclined 70 degrees relative to the (horizontal) ground, that could be described as steep.

dense? Yes (I thought the target is an object, not me)

Good sense of humor.

tubular (Another word I never heard before, but I wrote No anyway, but now I would of course say Yes) No

Yes I think you understand. Assuming that the cylindrical features of the target posted for Week #2 are hollow, then yes tubular would be correct.

amorphous (Wasnt sure about the meaning) No

Amorphous could imply a few things. Oddly shaped, for example. Unclassifiable shape. Irregularly shaped. Without a shape or form. Shapes that are asymmetrical might also be considered amorphous.

perpendicular? (Never heard that word before lol) No

Perpendicular. Think 90 degree angle. Squares and rectangles have perpendiculars; perpendiculars are defining features of those shapes. Many intersections of roads are more or less perpendicular.

Does that help?

Do you want any more clarification?

Were there any other words that you didn’t know, or didn’t understand?


#50

It means “i dont know/cant say”

I havent. I am German.

Alright. Ill get a black-ink pen this week.

I made a mistake when I wrote this. I miscalculated which number this question is and thought this is a “no-question” and added the explanation because it was countering what I actually drew. After that I noticed that I actually answered the question with Yes and forgot to remove the explanation.

Thanks, your explanation helped. I already looked up some of the words but some were still new.
Thanks


#51

@ExploringAstronaut

Thank you for your comments!

“I don’t know” and “Can’t say” are acceptable answers. So is “can’t identify” or “unidentifiable”. Thank you for mentioning this because these are important points. You can also write U/I for unidentifiable.

Your English is good! When you learned English, how did your learn it? Listening to music lyrics? Watching TV? Movies? Teachers? If teachers, what accents did they have: Canadian, British/English, “American”, Australian, New Zealand, Irish, or other?


#52

To all:

There is no secret about this so I will be blunt. The delay in the evaluation of your sessions is my fault, and all my fault, and only my fault.

When looking at sessions I am doing a number of things:

  1. looking for data
  2. looking at how that data is presented
  3. thinking about reasons why the data is the way it is
  4. thinking of ways to improve it
  5. integrating improvements into further rvX versions

This is not easy. Also I am working on posts that I hope if you implement it will improve your RV.

The other thing I want to emphasize is that although some people are producing results that resemble the target more, I think all of you are receiving the data. You are getting the input. There is the input: getting the data. Then there is the output: producing the data in writing or drawings or sketches. I think all of you are doing well with the input. It’s the output that needs work. This is an important distinction: the input and the output.

Here is the important point. The output I think is mostly about subconscious processes.

Think about this: if I showed you a picture, and held it in front of you to examine, and I asked you to draw it, you would draw it and write things about it that are accurate. It would look like the picture. People can do this easily.

But if I did the same thing but said, “Ok I want you to only draw part of this, or just shapes that kind of look like it”, you would probably think I was talking nonsense. No one would consciously choose to look at a picture and draw a bunch of partial shapes (unless of course they were a surrealist artist maybe… but you understand my point).

If you could consciously control the output, everyone would be producing very similar pictures.

Another thing that some one might say is “time on task”. In other words, the more you are remote viewing a target, the better results you should get. If you remove view a target for 45 minutes, the drawing should be better than if you remote view for 10 minutes. But I think this “time on task” can be bypassed because I’ve had times I got very detailed data and done very clear drawings in less than 10 minutes.

Please remember. I say all of this without criticism and without judgment. The output in my experience is the place that tends to present some difficulties, and the “why” is what I’m trying to unravel. Sure I could say “It’s AOL. It’s imagination. Etc.” but I think there needs to be a way to stop that. And that I think needs to be intervened subconsciously.

So I hope this is clear: you all seem to be doing well with the input. The output needs work, but I think that is subconscious. So please this is why I encourage all of you to listen to the rvX subliminal. If you do, please be honest about how many loops. If you don’t listen, then please be honest about that. I promise I will NOT be angry if you don’t, I would just encourage you and prefer that you listen to it because the subliminal intervenes with the subconscious, and I hope it will help with your output.


#53

Oh, thanks!

I had a very good English teacher in highschool, I think she had an American accent. But apart from that, 90% of what I know I have learned through YouTube, like you said music and books. Most books I read now are English, with just a very few exceptions.
Sometimes I feel like I already am living in the states haha :slight_smile:


#54

@ExploringAstronaut

Thank you for such a fast response!

This is good. I’m guessing if you were here in the States or in the UK or Canada or Australia or New Zealand or Ireland or Scotland… people would think you are fluent in English. Sure they might notice a German accent, but they would know that you understand English.

Now language is a subconscious process. You don’t consciously choose each word you use. You just talk and the words come out. Now I think RV is mostly a subconscious process. So I would encourage you to consider translating the audio into German. I’m thinking this might make this easier for you because there will be less mental processing at some level. In other words, you will not be translating English to German and German to English during RV. Your native language is German, so I am thinking that doing RV in German will improve your results.

The other recommendation is to write your sessions in German, and translate them into English for posting. Please post the German and English. To be specific, do your session in German, then when you are done with the session do the translation into English.

Why do this? I think that translating involves the language functions of the left hemisphere of the brain. I think that RV involves downregulating (or reducing electrical activity) in the left hemisphere. Why do I think this? In brain research with people who were split brain (they had their corpus callosums cut because they had very bad seizures), they would conduct experiments to present information only to one hemisphere. They noticed something very interesting. The left hemisphere can do a lot of language processing. BUT the right hemisphere can do some language processing. Yes the right hemisphere can do some language processing. But it is very simple such as single words or short phrases. That is why in RV we are encouraging single words and short phrases: because that seems to be the natural language output when one is doing RV, just single words and simple phrases. But what that also implies is that RV is probably less of a left hemisphere activity. If there is a lot of language processing, that is left hemisphere activity and might disrupt the RV process. Why else might this be important? Because analysis can produce AOL, and analysis seems to be a left hemisphere activity. If you increase activity in the left hemisphere, it might increase analysis and AOL. That is why I discourage analysis during RV. I want your left hemisphere quiet during RV.

I’m posting this explanation to make something clear: if I request you do something, it’s because I have a reason. Possibly one based on science. Although I can be bossy and I like to think I’m really smart, I generally avoid being bossy, and I’m not posting this to show off how smart I think I am. I request things because I think I have a logical reason that is probably based on science or research or observations. It is also because I want to help you become better at this.

So to sum up: to keep your left hemisphere quiet (which should reduce analysis and AOL), and to keep your brain in a state that should be more conducive to the RV process, please translate the audio into German. Listen to your German audio during your RV session. Write your RV session in German. Then when finished with your session, translate it into English. Then post both the German and English.

Please also know that your English is good! Remember this is about keeping your left hemisphere quiet rather than a comment on your English skills. I want your subconscious focused on the target when you RV rather than translating English to German and German to English. This is about brain activity rather than your language skills.

Remember that regarding the results your produced, I’m thinking they would have been better if it was all in German. So to you, I apologize because I should have mentioned this more clearly before. Now that you know, with the hope of giving you more of an advantage, please RV in your native language and be happy with your English skills because your English is much better than my German.


#55

I wanted to post this under the Week #3 Conversation thread, but it wouldn’t let me post 3 in a row.

To all:

While I am thinking about this, who is participating in this week’s session (Week #3)?

What is your native language?

If you learned English after you learned another language, how did your learn it? Listening to music lyrics? Watching TV? Movies? Teachers? If teachers, what accents did they have: Canadian, British/English, “American”, Australian, New Zealand, Irish, or other?


#56

Anonymous person: can you or someone else answer the “what is your native language” questions please?


#57

What is AOL?
And how did you learn all this? Did you read other books dealing with the mind and brain then those you already mentioned?


#58

AOL is short for Analytical Overlay. The idea is that part of the mind tries to use imagination, memory, synthesis, and other methods to take the adjectives (such as colors, textures, etc.) to figure out what the target is. That is just one example of how AOL might display.

I have read books about the mind and brain beyond what I’ve already mentioned. For example, I’ve read books by neuroscientists such as David Eagleman, Michael Gazzaniga, and Joseph LeDoux.


#60

@DarkPhilosopher

Analysis of results for Week 2:

First I will say that your first (top) drawing/sketch has the gestalts. Round and then linear. I think that represents the general features of the target. Notice the spheres, and beams connecting the spheres. Notice how the line in the first drawing at the top drawing/sketch is intersected with the roundish feature. And yes, the roundish objects in the target are interecting with the linear objects in the target.

I’m not sure how to interpret the colors because the surface appears to be reflective, so colors will depend (for the outside) on what’s being reflected. The best words for colors for this for the daylight perspective would be colors such as shiny, silvery, reflective, opaque.

You wrote: tall, big, outside, wide, and roundish. These are definitely correct.

Now look at your second drawing. Then look at the center roundish object with the beams attached to it. Also notice there are about 7 or 8 lines extending from the round object you drew near the bottom left of your page, and the photo shows a number of beams connected to central sphere-ish object. I don’t know how many by looking at the photo, but 7 or 8 is a good approximation.

So if I displayed the first photo (the exterior of this structure in daylight) for 0.1 seconds and said “Draw what you saw”. You might draw something like this drawing at the bottom of the page.

Now here is the issue, and please keep in mind this is a learning environment. I am posting all this without blame, fault-finding, criticism, or judgment. Where are the other sphere-like objects? I know that consciously you wanted to get the drawing accurate, so that is why I think there is something going on in the subconscious that is impacting the results (output). I would ask your subsconscious to make sure your drawings are more complete, and I ask you and your conscious mind to please run the rvX subliminal.

Overall, thumbs up! Be happy with your results, and focus on better results.

I would say that you are up as one contender for first prize. But please stand by. I need to keep looking.

Also here is a training activity: redo the session. I know you know what the target is. That is why I am asking you to please redo it. The reason is retrocausality/retroinfluence. The future seems to impact the past. The present seems to impact the past. The future seems to impact the present. I don’t have time to post why at this point, just please keep in mind if I give you something to do it is because I have a reason that is probably based on science, and it is intended to help you. Please post the re-do session here.


#61

If you have time later on or any other day, please explain what you mean by this. It sounds very interesting.