(Reader discretion is adviced. Do not perform anything mentioned below at home unless you feel confident about it. InVictus is not liable for any actions reader might have perfomed at their free will without our instructing to do so).
'Consciousness is not computation'
–Sir Roger Penrose, mathematician, physicist, Nobel Laureate in Physics of 2020.
Abstract. Extrasensory perception (ESP) & Out-of-body (OBE) phenomenas have been recorded across human history since the dawn of time, yet few or rather none had been ever recorded into the open and non-bias study until very recently (with respect to Stanford Research Institute (SRI) & The Monroe Institute (TMI)[0] ). We propose using SRI & TMI algorithms to not only test certain phenomenas, but if proven to be performance-convincing, to outline them, de-dogmatize and enhance to borderline performance-accepted levels which can be offered to the general public after proof-of-work is been shown as convincing.
0. Introduction: Predominant majority of Extrasensory perception (ESP) & Out-of-body experience (OBE) were either barely or never tested by independent researches, only extending already long-standing stigma in the field which human eyes were focused for at least hundreds if not thousands years. Additionally, as worldwide societal changes occur some of the dogmas either collapse or adapt to the modern agenda, which causes the topic of the discussion to resurface over and over again, additionally making it's attempts to either influx or synthesize quasi-scientific approach towards objective reality – e.g. 'quantum mysticism', which we definitely found alluring but not convincing. We propose several structural changes in regards to ESP-related research and development:
1) Universal scale of testing majority of ESP-phenomena using very well established system of 'Double-Blind Studies';
2) Dogma-free scaling of all subjects of ESP and shift of the language & terminology of experiments & researches using common practices established by later Robert Monroe & The Monroe Institute (e.g. Conciousness Level 1, Focus 10-25, mind-awake/body-asleep) [1];
3) Recording and declaring the presense of Bias if such exists during observations;
4) Shift towards quantum statistics where scenarios vary from one to another on probability scale rather than on binary scale of certain/uncertain;
5) If some mechanisms are yet to be fully investigated & backwards-engineered and consisting explanation is present while bias recorded on low spectrum, object shall be left perfrorming on current level and shall be marked as yet-to-be-concluded (YTBC).
Based on above-outlined approach InVictus proceeds with its' research & development of commercialy available (after the fact) products and - if possible - sharing the results of the studies which might be found useful for general public & ESP-curious minds of researchers and practitioners.
1. Baseline, Objects & Performance-driven level. For the purposes of this study InVictus reseach team defines Baseline as physical tangible condition of any matter without any recorded ESP-related actions performed on the object & the Object is the target of the testing & further research which is yet to be leveled up to next sub-baseline level which is Performance-driven level. Performance-level driven is the depth of the object of the study which has been elevated in it's endgame purpose from baseline for external purpose.
2. Timeline & Action study.
(Pic 1. Graphical illustration of a sequence of events and actions taken during the double-blind Action study)
During the Action study (pictured above) the ESP-researcher (shall be named Player 1) performed set of actions outlined by Robert Monroe as 'Energy Bar Tool' or EBT (referenced in 'Gateway Intermediate Workbook', declassified by CIA in 2003) [2], alienating some of Player 1's internal visual cognitive projection, which includes conscious-based level pictures onto material and totally physical objects. Part of this 'alienation' is visual imagination of transferring or stamping certain ideas, will or feelings ('Energy') onto a material and physical object. For the purposes of the study Player 1 is experienced practitioner and had performed relevant actions for almost a decade. (Experience Bias is present). As a result of those actions the object was elevated from Baseline to Performance-ready level making the object ready for Activation - set of events performed by third party and non ESP-researcher (shall be named as Player 2) in order to forcefully eject all of the Energy from the object and apply it in the narrow and very certain way only know to Player onto the subject of it's Energy - which is another third party who is not performing any actions and is unaware of any of the events taken place (shall be known as Player 3) in order to follow the guidelines of the Double-blind study. Those set of events performed by Player 2 include Manifestation of context-relevant Energy concentrated into the object by Player 1 and the purpose of using the Player 2 instead of only Player 1 only is to perform Activation with Binding which converts a presorted set of ideas into the object and prolongs it using the consciousness of the Player 2 onto exclusively Player 3 (unknowingly to the later one). Player 1 and Player 2 never saw each other personally, never met and have zero knowledge in regards to personalities differences and characteristics. The only piece of information is known to both of them is the object of the study (Target), Target's kind of Energy and fact of existence of each other in order to perform the experiment accordingly in 2 steps. Independent overview party (shall be known as Player 5) is reviewing all the data points and the study itself after the fact and writes down the conclusion of the study while Player 4 is gathering all of data in regards to Player 3 life changes and records Bias is such is present. Player 4 is the only one who is contact with Player 3 - a/k/a subject of the Target. Player 4 is responsible for directly recording chronicle life changes of Player 3 affected by the Target while being unaware of the depts of the actions taken by Player 1 and Player 2, neither existence of the Target but aware of a request to monitor Player 3 life, which eliminates all other biases other than this Request bias [3].
3. Timeline & Chronicle.
On 13th day after Player's 2 set of actions associated with activation of Target, Player 4 acknowledged sudden change of events in Player 3 life. This sudden change of events has exclusively positive chracter and is rather unlikely associtated with some action performed by Player 3 which caused it. Player 4 affirms that Player 3 was suprised by external set of events which 'quote: fell on his head out of nowhere'. Player 4 acknowledges that such set of events motivated lean more towards this exact event which only cause amplification effect and produced 'snow-ball effect' acting as an amplifier in a sorts. However the moment Player 3 'let it go' the overall effect of the actions set by the Target went away fully and further attempts to roll it back didn't bring any result.
4. Attempt to Replicate.
In order to conclude the duration and depth of the effects and exactly measure the duration of the Target's work the same test, outline in Paragraph 2. 'Timeline & Action Study' was performed again in approximately 90 days after the final set of actions was performed by Player 2 during the Action Study. Player 1 stayed Player 1, Player 2 and Player 4 swapped places, Player 3 stayed as the Target's subject and Player 5 is the Head of the controlled action study. Player 4 is responsible for Activation and Player 2 is responsible for diaring the events. Player 2 is not aware of the timeline but has background of the previous test (Context Bias). Player 4 has no understanding what has been going on with Player 3 but is instructed to perform Activation. During the controlled study Player 2 reports change in life events of Player 3, which occur approximately on 20th day after the Activation has been performed by Player 4. Player 3 responds immidiately to 'sudden' set of events in his life, affirming 'quote: exactly same thing I had 3 months ago' which Player 4 doesn't 'abandon' this time for approximately of 2 weeks until he publicly states that he exhausted it.
5. Controlled bias action study.
This time Player 1 performs the same transfer of Energy onto the Target, but this time Player 3 is responsible for Activation himself. He is instructed of the job done and the effects of it. Both Player 2 and Player 4 perfom data collecting, but do not intervene. Player 3 is the one performing the Activation and is the Subject of it. Player 3 is aware of the study and has controlled bias. In a period of approxiamately week after the Activation is performed both Player 2 and Player 4 report (difference of 1 day) the same set of events previously reported in two previous tests. This time Player 3 is not reporting anything but does acknowledge after the test is done that effect took place (matching time stamp of Player 4 reporting, one day later than Player 2).
6. Observations & Method.
Biggest observations reported by Player 5 and confirmed by all Players 1-4 is the biggest and noticable different in the depth of the effects and speed of the activation performed in the last test where Player 3 was both the subject of the Target and also responsible for Activation of the Target prepared for him by Player 1. In all of those tests Player 1 remained unchanged due to their biggest experience in ESP-relevant studies and confidence. Player 5 has not reported any observed biases towards Player 1's work. Player 3 has not reported any biases towards Player 1's work. Chosen method of testing confirm that in order to produce the noticable output certain parameters should be met for optimal performance: a) Transfer of Energy has to be performed by Player 1 who is the Manufacturer, b) Activation produces the best and time-wise fastes results when it's performed by the subject of it's Targer - Player 3 a/k/a Customer in the commercial application; c) Player 3 performs Activation using the same guidelines overviewed by Player 5 but acknowledge ease of the process when Player 3 has to imagine certain events which applicable to their life. Player 5 asserts that this difference is responsible for time difference of the effects of the action test and is relevant to the method. Player 1-4 agrees to this.
7. Conclusion.
We have proposed and demonstrated system of bias-controlled study of ESP-relevant materials. We started with the usual framework by outlining what was missed by previous researchers. To solve this we've applied the framerwork [4] developed by SRI, TMI and is partially based on Itzhak Bentov's research of counciousness-build visual models [5]. InVictus Research Team find this controlled study to be useful in further commercial developments and proceeding with further research nevertheless.
References:
[0] LTC. Wayne McDonnell, Analysis of Gateway Process, 1983 (declassified by CIA for public release in 2003)
[1] Robert Monroe. Journeys out of the body, 1971.
[2] Robert Monroe. Gateway Intermediate Workbook, 1977 (declassified by CIA for public release in 2003)
[3] Shobha Misra, Randomized double blind placebo control studies, the “Gold Standard” in intervention based studies, 2012.
[4] Dr. Russell Targ, Mind-Reach: Scientists Look at Psychic Abilities, 1977.
[5] Itzhak Bentov. Stalking the Wild Pendulum: On the Mechanics of Consciousness, 1988.
