NPR and clairvoyance

I've come to believe that I understand what clairvoyance/remote viewing, clairaudience, etc, really is. I believe that clairvoyance is when the waking mind taps into non-physical reality, the same reality that dreams/obes function within. When the "psychic"/remote viewer gets a vision, what he/she is really doing is consciously tapping into non-physical reality, or the (RTZ) real-time zone, as some would describe it.

As anyone who has had lucid dreams or OBEs knows, you are in what appears to be a non-physical duplicate of physical existence (while in RTZ, i.e. waking up in your bedroom)...except for a detail here and there. This explains, I think, why psychics and remote viewers almost never get 100% accuracy. They are actually viewing a non-physical representation. But any LDer will tell you that you can't tell the difference between physical reality and the non-physical simply by how it looks. So they are fooled into believing that they are seeing the objective physical world. They don't come to the proper conclusion because almost no one thinks along these lines. They are essentially fumbling in the dark, trying to find ways to use their access without knowing what they are actually accessing.

Not to ramble any further. I just wanted to throw out this nascent thought to see what other think. Thanks for reading.

I have seen a few interesting documentaries on Remote viewing. Don't know if I think it is real, but it could be.

Personally, I have no doubt in its existence. But that doesn't mean that every claim is valid. Mediumship is in the same boat. Contacting the dead is simply communicating through NPR by whatever means. Some mediumship is valid. Some, not so much. But I believe that all is related to NPR access. I have found nothing that makes more sense.

Of course, you have to first believe that Phasing/OBE is valid unto itself.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

Your first statement doesn't make much sense to me. OP, your whole post pretty much says that you think that people who are remote viewing or have OBEs/Astral Project are not actually moving around in our shared physical reality. What this should mean is that they are actually in some form of a dream state or highly altered state of consciousness, but instead you equate it to them tapping into some otherwise observable, non falsifiable, non-physical/non-corporeal reality rather than simply experiencing a highly convincing experience more akin to dreaming and hallucinating than anything else. Why do dreams have to be part of some larger non-corporeal reality that we somehow inexplicably get access to when we sleep, and occasionally while awake? How is that a more plausible explanation than it being a result of an altered state of consciousness? How is it that we are able to experience reality in the first place? The functionality of the brain in that regard is inexorably linked to dreaming and altered states of consciousness. Just because we appear to experiencing some form of reality, doesn't necessarily make it so. You could argue that you technically are, because dreams are real in the sense that the stimuli required for them to be experienced is taking place and measurable in physical reality, but there is definitely a nuance here that separates this argument from one where you try to argue that you are experiencing a different plane of reality or another dimension of some sort when you are in a dream, remote viewing, APing, OBEing, etc.

It seems to me that for the most part, you are thinking about the problem logically, but a faulty assumption that you haven't personally found enough evidence to shake your belief in is adding a layer of supernatural phenomena that has no way of ever being properly explained in scientific terms (at least not for a while in the future, if it's somehow true). If you didn't think that you surely must be tapping into another reality separate from our own (which, arguing that there is more than one reality doesn't make much sense unless you are talking about everyone's separate subjective realities they experience or something), then you would wind up concluding the same thing that both I, scientists, and plenty of other people who aren't willing to easily buy into supernatural phenomena come to about this subject: that it's an utterly convincing experience that, in all actuality, is all in your head. The brain is an absolutely stunning biological machine, and to that end people who are simply unwilling to believe that it's capable of this level of producing a vivid, mostly accurate, and again, utterly convincing internal reality that can be experienced during certain altered states don't seem to give it enough credit--that, and have historically had some stern beliefs in the supernatural that have been a major influence on their way of thinking for a good portion of their lives. It's plenty understandable why, but it doesn't make it correct.

If you simply replace your idea about tapping into a non-physical reality and say that you are experiencing an altered state of consciousness, then the conclusion that remote viewing being legitimate becomes hazy. Do you say it doesn't exist, or that it does, but the definition of it has to be changed into one where they don't claim to be accessing physical reality? Then again, even explaining it the way you have, have you already concluded for yourself that remote viewing isn't possible unless you change it's definition to one where the person experiencing it is actually accessing a non-physical reality, rather than the original claim to be accessing physical reality itself? Doesn't that already invalidate the idea? And then I would argue that you introducing a new, untested, non-testable, non-falsifiable concept such a non-physical reality that we apparently can through some inexplicable mechanism we are able to access, with no clues other than it happens when we are in altered states of consciousness is a bit silly. The common thread in them all is the altered states, so why add new information to the idea after replacing old information (talking about the definition of remote viewing again, changing from the idea of accessing a physical reality to a non-physical one) like accessing a different reality and go with what we know is key to all this: the altered states. It's the simplest explanation... I know Occam's Razor doesn't automatically make something right, but there isn't a need to make things more complicated in this case. It's plausible, testable/measurable, and falsifiable. It's much more viable of an explanation, and the only one here that's scientific.

By the way, the idea of the real-time zone sounds cool and all, but what exactly is that supposed to mean? Is it just a code name for objective reality? There really isn't such a thing as real-time. Or, rather, you could also make the argument that time every where is real-time. Given what we know about space-time and how its curvature affects the passage of time, all perspectives in regards to its passing are equally real. There isn't one perspective any more real than the other, so your idea of a real-time zone, at least by its name, doesn't really make any sense to me. That being said, the time that passes for the matter in your feet is different from the rate that passes for the matter in your head, or any part of your body for that matter. This effect can be exaggerated near large bodies of gravity. So how is it that it can be said to be a real-time zone? The idea just doesn't sound like it jives with our ever growing understanding of physics.

Surely you don't suggest that because something is considered scientific that it is automatically true? That anything non-scientific is false? And your Occam's Razor reference is just a Straw Man argument in that you conclude, using your own preferred logic, that you have the simplest answer to the issue that you yourself created. You try to simplify the problem into your preferred references as any materialist scientist would. "If I can't measure it, then you're being an idiot for believing it."

And please, don't play silly semantics games in an attempt to tag on some false credibility to your argument. Did you actually believe that by adding a Red Herring to the end of your materialist argument that it would side track the conversation into a more comfortable area for you to argue from? "No such thing as Real-time". Really? Lol.

The term RTZ is a metaphor just like any other, a reference used to convey an idea, in this case an idea of specifically-oriented dimensional space. The RTZ, as defined by Dr. Thomas Campbell, a quantum physicist, but not a materialist, views the RTZ as dimensional space at a vibratory rate separate from our own. It is a dimension in which our physical reality is mimicked, but not necessarily exactly so, and which is transformable through intention at a higher rate than that of the physical reality that we normally encounter/understand.

Your inability to grasp this does not make it wrong. You converse upon yet another false base by assuming that anyone who does not see reality with your sharp eyes must be deluding himself. Because obviously you are viewing everything scientifically. Must we go over the thousands of false assumptions made by scientists through the generations? More to the point, a huge amount of scientific "knowledge" is theory based, i.e. assumption, not a series of inviolable facts.

You make yet another false assumption and put it in my mouth when you say that because I place the phenomenon of remote viewing into non-physical space that it is automatically invalidated. It most certainly is not.

You keep making assumption after assumption and act as if you are speaking with facts. You are not. You are speaking from a materialist perspective of truth. That's all. A perspective. Not "The Truth." You are what people call a scientific religionist. Your belief in your materialist "Truth" is so strong that you evangelize through the use of false assumptions and false arguments hoping to overwhelm your opponent with your materialist logic, which in actuality is not logic at all. It is your version of faith-based truth. But you accuse me, and others I'm sure, of self-delusion because we won't roll over for your materialistic perspectives.

Though you don't make the point specifically, and I will do you the courtesy of not putting it in your mouth directly, but you make the false assumption, yet again, that our brain is us. Our brain is nothing more than an advanced organic data processor, a computer. That's it. Our bodies are organic filter systems used to collect vibratory data. The only things in our bodies that are not collectors are the parts, i.e. organs, etc., that are present to maintain said collective. Our consciousness works in coordination with this unit. It is not the unit. Materialists go ape shit over this concept because consciousness, seeing as it can't yet be measured, must simply be a subset of brain function. For it to be anything else is inconceivable to them. Because if it is something else, then their scientific religionist ideas turn to crap. And you can't have that, can you?

So, they spend their time, as do you, putting words into peoples' mouths and creating false arguments in a desperate attempt to validate you exceedingly limited view of reality.

But, to each their own. I'm sure your materialist perspective lets you sleep more comfortably at night.

And to follow on another of your points. Your false assumption, again, that I have a supernatural bent regarding the above-mentioned phenomena is blatantly false. There is nothing supernatural about it. All of the above are entirely natural processes that materialist scientists try desperately to suppress, simply because it doesn't match their world view. People such as yourself like to use the term 'supernatural' because you believe that it adds a layer of credibility to your argument and one of incredulity to your opponent. Ye ol' "burn the witch' ploy. Because that is how you were trained. Use false flags to engage the enemy, hoping to derail any true discussion of the actual point and replacing that argument with your false flag (the straw-man reference above, if you don't understand).

Your biggest blunder is the blunder of all materialists. You believe that because something isn't physical that it isn't real. If it doesn't fall under your personal definition of 'real', then it must be invalid by definition. Your Newtonian reality is quickly slipping away and leaving you holding the bag.

Your last statement was down right comical. "The idea just doesn't sound like it jives with our ever growing understanding of physics." Seriously? Your perspective isn't new, up-to-date physics. You are arguing from outdated, centuries old concepts that quantum physicists left behind a hundred years ago. That doesn't mean that all Newtonian concepts are false or defunct. It means that they are understood by the truly advanced scientifically minded to have significant limitations.

Based on your above statements, you apparently don't agree with quantum physics either. Is M-Theory just some poo-poo crap made up by a nut job, non-Newtonian physicist? I had to ask since it supports the idea of multi-dimensionality from a scientific/mathematical conceptual framework.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. It was nice chatting.

I agree with a lot of what you mentioned OP . It's like when remote viewing or having an obe or Astral projection the visions or images you get have to be deciphered. That is the hard part. Not letting your logical mind make up the impressions you receive. In lucid dreaming, you do reality checks based on predetermined or even familiar actions, but when remote viewing or having moments of clairvoyance, you can't use those familiar reality checks. You have to almost give up the logical and remember or record the images you get without letting your mind lead you into false impressions.
It's the empty rice bowl analogy. Keep you mind as blank as an empty rice bowl and just record the images, colors, feelings, smells that come. Then you try to make sense of them after your session has ended.