"ESP, remote viewing actually ‘complementary cognition?’ " -

ESP, remote viewing actually ‘complementary cognition?’

By Steve Hammons

The term “anomalous cognition” has come to mean something similar to what has often been called the “sixth sense.”

These concepts are also linked with names for this phenomena such as extrasensory perception (ESP) and remote viewing.

However, is it true that certain kinds of perception are actually “anomalous,” that is, unusual or out of the ordinary?

It may be that the sixth sense is actually a very natural, normal and common kind of perception that we all experience on a regular basis. We may not recognize it as such because we filter those perceptions through our conscious and logical thinking brain.

Or, maybe we just consider these perceptions as hunches, gut feelings, instincts or intuition that we may or may not pay much attention to.

It might be more accurate and constructive to call this kind of perception “alternative cognition” or “complementary cognition.” This is similar to ideas of alternative medicine and complementary medicine.

NORMAL AND NATURAL

We might think of alternative cognition or complementary cognition as just another perceptual resource to go along with our other five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell as well as our emotions, feelings, dreams and thinking brain.

In fact, maybe we will discover that there are more than these modes of perception. Maybe we have the ability to perceive in ways that can be further identified and specified.

There are also joint perceptions that involve using more than one sense or perceptual resource simultaneously. Integrating our sixth sense with the other five and other inner experiences may also be helpful, as well as very natural and normal.

Complementary cognition is probably something all humans, and probably many animals, possess as a natural part of our awareness.

However, this does not mean that all of us utilize this kind of perception in equal measure.

For example, remote viewing refers to some specific methods developed by the U.S. military and intelligence communities in Project STARGATE during the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s. People were selected to be remote viewers in these efforts because they were believed to have better than average or quite good abilities in this area.

These abilities were then scientifically tested, verified, measured and explored by Project STARGATE personnel.

Are these skills based on elements like personal experiences, training and practice, genetics or psychological traits? All of these factors, and maybe more, probably play a part in the abilities of a particular person.

In addition, the purpose or importance of the alternative or complementary cognition experience might be an important factor. Is it being used as part of an important secret mission, for personal safety and survival, to find a missing child, to catch a dangerous criminal?

Would these situations somehow contribute to the availability or accuracy of complementary cognition experiences compared to a purpose that is less important?

emperorzombie wrote:any studies to go with this? peer reviewed?

Researchers have steadily worked on accumulating that mountain of evidence:

* Dream psi - 47 studies - 1,270 sessions - odds against chance 2.2x10^10 to 1.
* Ganzfeld psi - 88 studies - 3,145 sessions - odds against chance 3.0x10^19 to 1.
* Conscious detection of being stared at - 65 studies - 34,097 sessions - odds against chance 8.5x10^46 to 1.
* Unconscious detection of distant intention - 40 studies - 1,055 sessions - odds against chance 1,000 to 1.
* Unconscious detection of being stared at - 15 studies - 379 sessions - odds against chance 100 to 1.
* Dice PK - 169 studies - 2.6 million dice tossed - odds against chance 2.6x10^76 to 1.
* RNG PK - 595 studies - 1.1 billion random events - odds against chance 3,052 to 1.

emperorzombie wrote:as far as kooks, i remember some dude saying that he used remote viewing to prove the world governments were corrupted by lizard aliens from sirius, that type of thing.

emperorzombie wrote:any studies to go with this? peer reviewed?

it just seems the people you hear spouting off about this stuff, on the usual AM radio shows and whatnot, are a little kooky.

emperorzombie wrote:the stargate and intelligence community stuff.

emperorzombie wrote:ive always been interested in remote viewing and dabbled with it when i was studying A. O. Spare's work

Sascrunch wrote:I would agree, that aspect of it makes me sort of roll my eyes.

ankh_f_n_khonsu wrote:What aspect of the Stargate project inspires you to 'roll your eyes'?

Sascrunch wrote:Any time you combine the government with occult sciences and/or spiritual practices, it ends up sounding like an Art Bell program. Just not my cup of tea.

emperorzombie wrote:the art bell show is usually entertaining but skepticism is advised.

Khephra wrote:Out of curiosity, what aspect(s) of the Stargate program do you consider "occult sciences and/or spiritual practices"?

Sascrunch wrote:Remote viewing!

Khephra wrote:

Sascrunch wrote:Remote viewing!

I'm still confused, but maybe you can help me understand by clarifying. "Remote viewing", as I understand it, is not necessarily limited to those who have a spiritual orientation. It's a skill that many spiritual disciplines provoke, enable or prioritize, but that doesn't mean it isn't accessible to others. Making a similar comparison, it seems a lot like saying that since many spiritual traditions use incense for their practice, others can't or shouldn't use it for some other, 'non-spiritual' purpose.