Galileo and Remote Viewing
Interestingly, the book's logical conclusions can also be deduced from the Influence Idea. The Influence Idea is relatively simple and can be summed up in one sentence: the only way that Life can exist and flourish in a universe governed by Entropy is for there to be an external, non-physical organising influence acting upon physical reality.
I still can't see a flaw in the Influence Idea and so I feel, as someone who values the scientific method, that I am duty bound to accept its conclusion; that minds create life and, ultimately, our reality. This may not be the view of the scientific establishment at the moment but that is irrelevant, as it is the scientific evidence and logic that decides, not personal likes and dislikes. Fortunately, I'm not the only who's come to this conclusion. Famous quantum physicists and mathematicians such as Wolfgang Pauli, Max Planck, Neils Bohr, John Von Neumann and Eugene Wigner (among others) also concluded that minds create reality.
When will the mainstream scientific establishment also accept that minds create reality? It's a tough question. Even though the famous quantum physicists listed above concluded that minds create reality nearly a century ago, it is still a heretical view. If those luminaries can't persuade the scientific hierarchy to change their views, who can?
That's a long time to make a change; three hundred years between the theoretical proof and the official endorsement. Why so long? I think it's worth suggesting that it wasn't specifically a religious issue that was blocking this change. Instead, it was simply a problem of replacing a popular, ego-centric view of the universe with a more humbling one. Many people liked the idea that the entire universe went around the Earth, it made the Earth the centre of the universe. Even now, many scientists are happy to consider the idea that the only sentient life in the Universe exists on the Earth, which is both incredibly unlikely and highly egotistical. If the change had been from a less egocentric and pleasing idea to a more egocentric, pleasing idea, I'm guessing the transfer would have been completed far more quickly.
Unfortunately, 'mind-creates-reality' is a very unpleasing idea to many scientists. As the Nobel Prize winning physicist Eugene Wigner pointed out, many scientists like the idea that the universe is a physical place that is unaffected by mental presence and that minds are nothing more than ephemeral phenomena, as it makes what they're studying the only important thing in existence.
Fortunately, history tells us that humanity does accept what is true, eventually; it just takes a while. Hooray! This should hopefully mean that 'minds-create-reality' will eventually become officially accepted, but it'll still take a long time; probably just as long as it took the heliocentric model to be officially accepted. On the plus side, we've already gone through the theoretical phase for the 'minds-create-reality' idea. Nobel-prize-winning physicists showed its theoretical basis nearly a century ago; what's needed now is the practical, experimental stage, the 'telescope' phase of the transition. Humanity needs a tool to be developed that people can use to find out, first-hand, that this new view of the universe is correct.
There is a possible skill that could fit this bill; it's called remote viewing. In the late seventies, the US Military, through the Stanford Research Institute, investigated the possibility of running a team of people trained to pick up information about a remote target, one that they couldn't physically see, via the mind's ability to pick up information about any location in space or time. This ability is regarded as patently impossible by materialists, but in a 'minds-create-reality' world, where our minds originate outside of the space-time physical universe, such an ability is perfectly possible. Although the US military were highly sceptical, they employed senior scientists who demonstrated that the technique worked. They also had a pressing motivation. They had reports that the Russians were already working extensively in this field and they didn't want to fall behind.
According to the many books on the subject, and the US military's own released documents, remote viewing was a thoroughly tested success. The remote viewing team the US military employed was able to retrieve and describe extensive information about a variety of remote targets and did this on a regular basis for around twenty years. Although the remote viewing programme officially came to an end in the nineties, there are signs that it continued, albeit outside of civilian scrutiny. There are many books on this topic, both from journalists and individuals carrying out the work. Of the large number of books on the subject, I'd recommend the following:
It's interesting to note that the US military were quite happy to use a technique regarded by the scientific establishment as bunk because it worked. The US military's priority was to be better than the enemy; towing an official scientific line of belief was irrelevant to them. If the technique hadn't worked, the US military certainly would have dropped it immediately, but once the US military found out how useful the technique could be, they were willing to put up with flak over using it because the results were worth it.
This pragmatic hard-headedness on the part of the US military has an interesting corollary in Galileo and his telescope. The telescope was an extremely useful tool for the Venetian navy. If the telescope hadn't been so useful in this way, it's possible the Church would have banned it, but because it was militarily useful, it stayed and was manufactured and distributed. This military usefulness enabled the telescope to be put in the hands of more and more people who could then check for themselves whether the geocentric belief system was true. In this way, the spread of a new and more accurate view of the universe was, in a sense, a side-effect of a military project.
Will the US military's use of remote viewing be the 20th Century version of the telescope and heliocentrism? It's hard to say. It's worth noting that the heliocentric theory took another century or more after the development of the telescope to become firmly established as the official view of the universe. It's likely that this will be the case with 'mind-creates-reality' too. Unfortunately, by that time, human-kind will have to deal with the far more pressing issue of climate change and so its adoption may not come with much of a fanfare.
For anyone interested in how remote viewing works, Dean Radin's book 'Supernormal' includes a succinct and useful account of this technique. Radin's book is filled with scientific studies, but he also includes some first-hand accounts. In one example, Robert Hogan, a professor of writing at Illinois State University, was happy to be tested by Radin on his remote viewing ability. The test was successful (although a one-off test carries little scientific significance). Hogan described his remote viewing skill as follows:
In 1998, I read 'Tracks in the Psychic Wilderness' by Dale Graff [retired Defense Intelligence Agency Director of the US government's classified psi research program] in which he described how to remote view. I sat in front of a monitor with the code for a target in my mind and closed my eyes. I made my mind 'an empty rice bowl'. I repeated the code to myself and waited. The impressions came and I sketched them. I nailed the target the first time.
What I do hasn't changed much since then, but I have some nuances that are different. I got a quiet place and sit. I close my eyes and warm down for a minute or two by relaxing. Joe McMoneagle [former army 'psychic spy'] takes 45 minutes to warm down. I'd be asleep by then. I can go only for a minute or two. With my eyes closed, I blank my mind and repeat the target code or location. It could be a code like AMEF or a location like 'on the table in Wayne's Office'. I just need something to focus my attention on that thing out of the innumerable other things in the universe. I have a place I 'look' in my mind and I know my eyes can actually focus on it. It isn't like an infinity setting on a camera. I think it's with a focus of about three feet.
The next part is difficult to describe. I allow images to come. If someone says it's an object on a table, I allow an 'impression' of a table to come into that space. I'm not really remote viewing the table. It's just a platform. Then my mind relaxes me into allowing target impressions through. I may say 'let me see the object on Wayne's Table'. As I relax into it, I get a feeling that it is a little like a very small feeling of that time when you're starting to drift into sleep. I could guess that it's going from Alpha brainwave rhythm into Theta, but I don't know. I don't hold it for long. I come back from it and then I have to go back in. I have to open my eyes and sketch what I get, but I'm not a good artist and by the time I get part of a sketch started, I've lost some of the target. I write the impressions in words and sketch what I can. Then I have to close my eyes again, warm down briefly and repeat the process. I have to stay with details and avoid naming something. I'm much better at objects than pictures.
I've learned that everything I get is meaningful, but some can't be associated with an object. It's still attached to some real thing. I have had no training, and probably haven't done more than a hundred sessions since I first learned I could do it in 1998.
I found Hogan's description of remote viewing to be spot-on, as it matched my own experiences of using the technique. In the next blog on this topic, I'll write about these experiences and include a sample remote viewing session I carried out earlier this year. It is a fascinating technique and, at least to some extent, it definitely works. For me, personally, remote viewing has been like looking through a telescope at Jupiter. I might have been aware theoretically that minds are separate to reality and collectively create it, but nothing beats directly experiencing a phenomenon that supports that theory.