When entering the parameters for the big digital bang in our universe, do you think that it was meant to spawn many civilizations in our galaxy, or only 1 (us) for each galaxy or perhaps some galaxies are even devoid of life entirely. I know this pmr has evolved to be the way it is and not a great deal of tinkering occurs, but it appears that our solar system is very rare, could there have been
some "editing" in our solar system to be able to get the right conditions going?

/Carl

I don't think the parameters were entered. Nature fills all niches because that is it's nature. The VRs that worked out to support "life" were just each one niche which worked out. Imagine all the VRs that didn't work out for "life" and therefore to help Evolve the system at all. Dead VRs...
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

I´m just saying do you/others here think that we on earth are supposed to be alone in this pmr, or is this universe more densely populated.
I´m thinking that the lightspeed barrier was one parameter that was entered so that this "kindergarden" would not easily run into other "kindergardens" in our galaxy.

/Carl

If Bob Monroe's experiences and the experience of various other participants at TMI are to be taken at face value, there is almost certainly a number of other civilizations within this PMR. Joseph McMoneagle saw an ancient civilization of tall humanoids living in storm shelters on Mars in one of his remote viewing sessions, and of course he was blind to the target until he received feedback.

As far as Tom's stance on the issue, he posted extensively about it here:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7198&p=57665#p57665

The point is that Bob Monroe's experiences cannot be taken at face value - nor Joe McMoneagle. There is no such thing as focus levels. That was made up by Bob as a tool to find different levels of consciousness and switch data streams. It was his subjective interpretation of what he was experiencing. He used it as a road map for others that The Monroe Institute still uses today. The problem is that they think such places really exist.

It was Joe's subjective interpretation that he saw an ancient civilization of humanoids on Mars. Maybe it wasn't Mars. Maybe it wasn't even in this PMR. I don't think he is enough of an NPMR traveler to know. Tom has said that you have to go back to the same place many times and see if you experience the same thing to understand what you are experienceing. And he has said that in most cases you will never be able to get there by yourself - and NPMR entity will have to take you initially.

Great question, and i have interacted with Tom on this quite a few times. Really anything is possibly within the realm of probable logic. Somethings are much more likely than others to happen, i have virtually no doubt about other sentient life in our universe. Although Ted does bring up the best logical assessment against it, that i have heard. Now assuming that there is other life being played by consciousness, getting to them through space travel is going to have to be something on the magnitude of beyond extraordinary, so as we can interact. Light speed being broken in any significant way is in my view very unlikely. Now in my view, which very well may be wishful thinking, i think we will somehow in the future be able to transport matter at these necessary long distances. Through some type of wormhole effect, like ships with sub light speed capabilities with a crew in tact. This is one of my dreams, obsessions, to be apart of this somehow sometime. Fred

The Focus Levels are a set of arbitrary labels coined by Monroe, so in a sense he did make them up. However, they correspond with specific brainwave patterns and can be experienced by virtually anyone with the proper Hemi-Sync frequencies. So while the labels are subjective, the specific altered states are consistent from person to person.

Buddhists talk about eight jhanas that can be accessed via strong concentration. In a sense, the buddha invented his own labels. On the other hand, if you develop the right level of concentration, you too can experience these altered states just like the sages of old.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I just want to point out that while reality is subjective, there is also a certain level of consistency, even when it comes to exploring NPMR.


What makes this interesting is that Joe was highly successful at RV'ing targets all over earth, and that he was unaware that the target was Mars until he was debriefed. But even he himself was skeptical as to what he perceived.

You can actually read the chapter right here if you so please:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57502222/Jose ... k#page=150

I think you might have missed Sainbury's point. We are organized data experiencing other data. The data is fundamental, but not the experience of the data. Consider how a green blob from a PMR that is a subset of a different NPMR sees the data that is at the root of the eight jhanas. It would likely be totally different. How does that green blob experience love, NPMR exploration, etc? Everything is subjective.

This specific explorer tape is great and might help in helping wrap one's head around the notion of data experiencing data concept; and the deeply subjective nature of existence. It did for me anyway.

Tape # 31 from this page: http://www.monroeinstitute.org/resource ... rer-series

_________________
-"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find... you get what you need"

Well i must say it is starting to get interesting. Justin my view is that we are more than just data, i think we are a nonphysical processing substance that is intertwined with data. Saying that we are just data is an easy way, a metaphor, to describe the interface that causes consciousness. We can not have one without the other, now to really know of how this interface of data is causing consciousness. Other than the effects we get, which is our subjective experiences. I think maybe we would somehow have to be outside of this interfacing process. Maybe people with a lot of mathematical understanding can conceptualize consciousness as just data . But for the life of me, it seems to be an interface of data with an unknown nonphysical processing substance. That becomes more with the organizing of the available data wherever it comes from. I think entertaining and trying to process these types of hard questions, is really out of our scope of understanding. processing the data we have on things like this can only get us so far, because of the constraints of the virtual brain. I really do not think if it was know how this interface works we could understand acting here within our constraints. Just being conscious and aware and having a purpose, and knowing that we might fully understand this interface one day will have to do. Fred

Consciousness isn't caused, it is the cause. Consciousness (nonphysical nonsubstance information/data) is what causes are derived from.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Thanks for the link to the tape. The notion of data experiencing data is certainly a tough concept to get one's head around. It reminds me of some occasions when I've done mindfulness meditation, where the mind is mindful of itself... somehow.

I have never heard that the focus levels correspond with specific brainwave patterns. Do you have some reference for that? Exploration in our own PMR is subjective and not very consistent. Ask 100 people what they think of Paris. A hundred people that are seeing Paris in different places at different times will have a hundred different impressions. So how do you figure that NPMR exploration has a "certain level of consistency?" I think you can see that is not true if you read any of the books by William Buhlman, Robert Bruce, or any of the other popular NPMR explorers. This is the very thing that makes Tom so special and the very thing that makes his message different. MBT is not a subjective report of personal experiences. Robert Monroe's books and TMI are all based upon Bob's personal exploration filtered through the bias of his ideas, experiences, and beliefs.

I believe Joe is a very effective remote viewer. I imagine he is more consistent when he remote views targets that can be checked in PMR. His remote viewing has to be a lot more subjective and less fact checkable for accuracy if he is doing random NPMR targets. He does not to my knowledge do any out of body exploration.

I do not have a specific reference, but the whole idea behind binaural beats is brainwave entrainment, no? A 4hz beat produces theta waves, etc


There seem to be some universal experiences when it comes to OBEs-- vibrations, passing through tunnels, etc. I'm not saying that it's entirely objective, I just struggle with the idea of it all being purely subjective. Even Tom and Dennis were able to meet up and describe the same experiences.


I agree, popular out-of-body explorers really don't agree with one another. I suppose that's why a lot of folks think that OBE'ing is really just lucid dreaming. This caused me much confusion when I first learned about this subject, but thankfully Tom came along and tied it all together.


I do recall that on one occasion Joe remote viewed a person who died in the middle of the remote viewing session. Of course no one knew that at the time, there was just this sudden shift and Joe saw the target being wrapped in gauze in darkness. That is one example of what you could call an accidental NPMR target... Of course, RVing is ridiculously subjective, so I guess that only proves the point.

Joe has spontaneous OBEs but struggled to control them with Bob's help. He eventually chose to do RVing full time.

Experiencing vibrations etc. is a recognition of transitioning data streams and many people never experience it. That is like saying a lot of people fly to Paris. That is a very different thing than saying there are real focus levels at specific brain wave patterns. I know of no data to support this. That is why I am saying that focus levels are a tool made up by Bob Monroe and not a real thing that someone who had never heard of them would ever find. Most people transition data streams (go out of body) randomly. So if you send 100,000 people out in the world randomly, how many will end up in Paris and of those will their descriptions be the same? Unless you have some NPMR guidance and most likely an NPMR plan - data transition experiences are highly subjective. Those experiences may be important to the person having them but are unlikely to have much value to someone else.

Tom and Denis having the same experience was a unique circumstance between two experienced NPMR travelers and not the norm.

I met Joe McMoneagle when I went to TMI and have read several of his books. I don't recall anywhere that he said he had spontaneous OBEs. Where is your reference for that?

Tom has also explained that to get to the places where he went in NPMR, you had to initially have a guide within NPMR to take you there. You could not just find it by a description. You could however take a description as your guide to subjectively interpreting your incoming data stream to represent the Focus levels that Robert Monroe described. He also emphasized the need for repeated trips to a given 'location' which you compared in order to have any degree of 'certainty' about what was really there based on consistency. This is my understanding.

Note that the consistency between what Tom and Dennis observed and discussed in that recording was based upon their being 'there' together and discussing it in the present time, not in separate trips and just reporting observations.

Ted