2010 Professional Seminar: Entrained Mental Coherence Random Systems (Skip Atwater)

objective. He said, and the issue that you're dealing with is how can we really prove anything to a scientific model? If in fact, we're always influencing data? We are all one. And at what levels? Do we have to deal with conflict of interest? 45:50 The light demouth on the Age of Enlightenment, you know, what, just 500 years deep, I gets rid of all this religious baloney and we're gonna be enlightened people new science, right? 46:00 Well, the reason Marilyn Schlitz, his work is so incredible, is that she was able to show that the consciousness of the researcher following Wigner does influence outcome. And she set up experiments that were also done by a skeptic in England. And they each did exactly the same experiment and consistently got different outcomes. She believing and having a certain intention, and he having a skeptical position. So the brilliance of Maryland's work, she's now President environments, working closely with Dean Raiden confirms the actual issue that Tom brought up when he mentioned wigger. Because I don't know if he's an HE, basically, you don't hear much about him, because in a way, he shaken the whole foundations of science by saying there was science is objective. So you can 46:52 be objective? Well, it's fun to it's fun to say, hey, come to the Monroe Institute, we can change the universe. Look, we have these measurements where quantum reality was changed just by your trip to the Gateway, isn't this wonderful? Maybe? You know, it's a very interesting thing. 47:10 I don't mind that was funny your life? Yes. That's what's really cool to me here. Is that data, they wouldn't let you present. Which that was not your, your within your intent. Okay, so the question was, whose mind? Was that reflecting? Which is, I think, really cool. Could it be that the fact that they wouldn't allow you to report it allowed it to happen? 47:41 Of course, we don't know. We don't know exactly. What goes on and that sort of like what I'm trying to say here. We are trying really hard. Tom has put together something that looks fine. In what does that have to do with what's for dinner tonight, Tom? It's an interesting world, we're moving into Karen. 48:13 Because everything is so calm. The point that you were saying about coherence, around a mile or so away, then there's more entropy or chaos. And what happened? There were three gateways running where ions examine a mountaintop, and they got a lower parking lot. Well, they have all the week long attendees park down in the lower parking lot. Three gateways in the road, the cars were around a mile half a mile away. And I thought that was very interesting, because we were it was very competitive. And yet, ions, that's never happened before. And now during gateways, we all have permission to see, I think that is very interesting. That needed to 49:13 stamp out. 49:15 If I were back in February, I can get a reliable set. So no, doesn't matter. And elsewhere. Experiment. negative angles are correlated. First chose the opposite. If you had three and a half virus weights are decided just just a little bit with other possibilities. 49:52 Again, the review panel and you can read the stuff here but we ran three different times of Have at the time accepted true random number generators inside the Nancy Pen Center in the 14 during gateway things, they showed chance deviation of point 008. During eight, non still running non participants there, they ran at chance expectation point seven, four. So the devices measured during those two situations seeing seemed to behave the way we thought they did. It has been published in the JSC journal Journal of scientific exploration. And I'm gonna give you copies of the actual publication that was published a month or so ago. Oh, yeah. These people are pretty stodgy because they're on the fringe of publishing. And so they want to make sure nobody accuses them of ah, you weren't good enough. So 51:02 JSC was actually started by people who were breaking away from the system. 51:07 Yes. They're trying to maintain a reputation. Hi. 51:13 affects the results, aren't we already in a situation where the people that are conducting this, these experiments have done it enough, where we now have sort of a rule set that says, gosh, big events, create deviation and random event generators. And so it kinda like would rule you out unless we pair you up with a skeptic. And we just want to prove that the intent 51:36 is there. That's an interesting thing, because you said you hit it, you're at results must follow the rule set. And that's why the lights are constant. But does the rule set change as time goes by? 51:50 You know, the ruleset was how we evolve. You can think of the big digital bang, the Big Bang, big digital bang means you start out with in a computer, a lot of energy, it's tight, but it expands all simulation. And then it evolves, planets, us the ruleset and suddenly generates a reality our reality has evolved out of that rules. Now can get a rule set change in the speed of light change? Well, sure things like that can change. There's nothing that prohibits them from changing. But changes tend to confuse the experiment. Just like if you're sending an experiment, and people are learning and growing, to change things, introduces 52:38 just continuity, sure, well confounding variables, those darn things. 52:43 Typically, the system tries not to do that tries to keep it consistent. That doesn't mean that or special occasions or, 52:53 like I can't find my keys where I left it on those special occasions, 52:57 things can change. But I guess two things, comments is one is that there is no such thing as objectivity doesn't exist. It is an approximation that isn't approximation, things are approximately objective. So I was thinking as a rule of thumb sort of applies to actually objective. And the same with the terminus sites will tell you that they're, that their science is deterministic. But it is not, there's no such thing as determinism either. Both of those things are just approximations. And once you have what we need to learn, 53:32 do quantum paths with 53:35 uncertainty. We live in a very uncertainty within a very uncertain reality. And because nothing is objective, you live in the moment, and you realize that uncertainty is part of life. And we let go of the idea that we need to control everything, which is the problem science as soon as you let go of control. It's not science anymore. So it's a matter of living with uncertainty, gracefully. 54:03 Well said, well said just second, 54:06 I just like to say one thing about this overall subject for McMonagle, once gave us a demonstration, and he had a big fight for it. And he had before happened. so on. At the end of this, he put his hand on the board, and he said it all is. And this is the most profound statement, really, because everything is and we can talk forever, about backwards and forwards and data changing and collapsing the wave function and all that stuff. But it all is. 54:45 I think that that's I believe that's absolutely true. What's for dinner tonight. And it's it we're constantly wrestling with that whole issue, you know, but and I believe we're getting mixed up in this Are you thinking it's holding us back to argue with ourselves about our what we appear to be? And what really isn't? So 55:13 setting up a situation where 55:18 there have been people that have tried to think about how they could do, how they could do. Or they could do that. And they sort of done that in wondering whether or not remote viewing is dependent upon feedback given to the viewer. And what if we used a computer to judge it, rather than a human being to observe the data? And there are several different models attempting to do that. And it's like, well, I'm joking with you. That's fine experiment, but we can't ever know how it came out. Because once we know 56:06 everything's conscious. So everything's observed. 56:10 So yeah, 56:11 is there any thing that isn't? I mean, when we privilege, certain observers and say, their attentions are important, but what about the non physicals? What about the animals? What about the? What about everything? Everything is observing everything? Well, 56:24 yeah, I want to turn that question to Tom with a modifier. The question under our present understanding of how you explained it, it is the observance of us consciously, that determines the result stream. Okay. Now, I'm going to add one pit to the question, then you really have a good theory of everything. People have asked if a remote viewer observes an event, does it change by remote viewing observation, as opposed to observing with these eyes and hands, that he's suggesting that if all is consciousness, everything going on is always being observed all the time? 57:12 The answer to that is this reality, this virtual reality that we have, is organized and here for us to interact? And we're talking about the rules just in this reality system. It's true that it's not just the person who is consciously intending to influence. It's, it's more than that there are more things connected to that than just that one person. We are all kind of connected, we're all netted together, right? We all communicate in ways that are beyond verbal and nonverbal. So you have a lot of connection going on. As you the experimenter are talking to other people, you're trading information at a level that is not intellectual. So how do you isolate? You know, how do you isolate something, say just what was it that caused it when everything's connected together? So you start with this thing about we're all one really is the case, we're all netted, we're all sharing, the information moves around. But when it comes just to this reality frame, if you remote view, a piece of data and saying, well, then that brings it into the reality. It doesn't bring it into this physical matter. Reality, right? Okay, it doesn't bring it in to where it's in consonance with the physical history, and with the ruleset. So no, that does not bring 58:36 it in here. It's in this other world called non space time remote viewing world, it's in that data set. Not here, 58:44 not in this one, then it's still up for modification, because it's not interrupted this reality frame. 58:54 Get this seems like what's pushing the current revolution in science and physics. I'm beginning to hear more and more in regular publications. My I've always been interested in how the sugar and find the sugar for example, and the fantastic sensitivities, living creatures, are we just becoming aware of something throughout everything as far as it's a quantum thing has to do with with consciousness and forward and backward. That would explain it. We're just now becoming conscious of the fact that this exists throughout nature, with the birds all flying in a flock carrying the same instant fish carrying the same messages group mind phenomena. All this cop says seems to be related. This seems to answer an awful lot of questions that I've had all my life about how nature functions in his great beauty and variety. At such fantastic small levels. You can't even measure somebody's thing that throws it into quantum airy, it for the present time. There's probably other explanations along We've had quite a time here. 1:00:02 But but your the element of what you're saying is, we are just now becoming aware of how it is always been 1:00:14 greater. Tom would call it the big truth, and other people are calling us a greater reality. 1:00:20 It's an interesting thing, I'm glad people are writing it down a 1:00:23 bottle inside, you know, 1:00:25 this is if this is the evolutionary ship if there is an evolutionary shift going on, because science, religion, protecting its worldview of its creation story, and along came science at the same time. So they as the status quo, needed to say these new scientific people who were saying,