Telepresence, Remote Viewing, Scrying W/ #mandalaOS & omnivateLLC

Telepresence and distributed identity are big focuses of the Mandala OS Project, facilitating intelligent statehood for non-local entities:

Telepresence refers to a set of technologies which allow a person to feel as if they were present, to give the appearance that they were present, or to have an effect, at a location other than their true location.

Telepresence requires that the senses of the user, or users, are provided with such stimuli as to give the feeling of being in that other location. Additionally, the user(s) may be given the ability to affect the remote location. In this case, the user’s position, movements, actions, voice, etc. may be sensed, transmitted and duplicated in the remote location to bring about this effect. Therefore information may be traveling in both directions between the user and the remote location.

See also:

Remote Viewing (RV) refers to the attempt to gather information about a distant or unseen target using paranormal means or extra-sensory perception. Typically a remote viewer is expected to give information about an object that is hidden from physical view and separated at some distance.

And also:

Scrying (also called crystal gazing, crystal seeing, seeing, or peeping) is a magic practice that involves seeing things psychically in a medium, usually for purposes of obtaining spiritual visions and more rarely for purposes of divination or fortune-telling. The media used are most commonly reflective, translucent, or luminescent substances such as crystals, stones, glass, mirrors, water, fire, or smoke. Scrying has been used in many cultures as a means of divining the past, present, or future. Depending on the culture and practice, the visions that come when one stares into the media are thought to come from God, spirits, the psychic mind, the devil, or the subconscious.

Loosely associated image dump:

holographic.png

785px-Eniac.jpg

adam-greenfield-mit.jpg

LarryLovelawcover.jpg

moon-ritual-thumb.jpg

wavelengths-uvabattles_10.jpg


- END -

ASSOCIATED CONTENT BY TIM BOUCHER (Auto-Generated)

13 Comments

  1. Posted January 9, 2009 at 2:08 am | Permalink

    Why is my picture on this page?

  2. Posted January 9, 2009 at 3:02 am | Permalink

    Are you talking about the last one? Picked it up somewhere in my datawake and its been following me around like digital pollen. Trying to shake it off in other gardens to pollenate.

  3. Posted January 9, 2009 at 3:03 am | Permalink

    Actually, maybe you’re not talking about the last one. Either way, the explanation still stands. Curious to know which one yours is ….

  4. Posted January 9, 2009 at 4:09 am | Permalink

    People still think they own pictures in 2009? That’s a discovery unto itself.

  5. Posted January 9, 2009 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    heheh!

  6. Posted January 10, 2009 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    Not “my” as in “mine,” Justin. “My” as in “of.” It’s a picture of me, and I’m very curious as to why it’s apparently being marshaled in support of concepts I categorically repudiate.

  7. Posted January 10, 2009 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    Are you at least going to tell us which one it is?

  8. Posted January 10, 2009 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Haha, oh I guess its the one that says Adam Greenfield on it. Which concepts exactly are the ones you “categorically repudiate”? No harm was meant by posting any of this. No wonder “your picture” got taken up into this datastream though, if you’re indeed the author of “Everyware”

  9. Posted January 10, 2009 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    Are you on Twitter Adam?

  10. Posted January 10, 2009 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, that’s me.

    What do I repudiate? Let’s see. “Scrying.” “Remote viewing.” Anything at all described as being “paranormal” or “extrasensory.”

    If your argument is that the technology now exists, at least in principle, to support certain “sufficiently advanced” experiences previous generations would have had trouble distinguishing from the ostensibly paranormal, I can’t necessarily disagree with that.

    If, on the other hand, your argument is in any way that scrying and remote viewing are real phenomena or are otherwise worthy of a moment’s consideration, I’d want to make it very clear to anyone coming across this page that this has nothing to do with the things I write and speak about, and that your use of that image in no way implies my advocacy of such a belief.

    I’m sorry if this sounds humorless or pompous, but I can’t stress enough just how destructive I find these ideas, and how distressed I’d be if anyone thought of me as an advocate of them.

  11. Posted January 10, 2009 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    Okay, well that certainly clears it up! Like I said, no harm meant by it and I’ll post your note to primetime so people know that what I’m looking at and what you’re looking at are two distinct things!

    In my own defense though, I’m not actually making an “argument” by any means – at least not in this particular post. I’m really just exploring keywords and concepts which to me seem loosely related [see also: associative search]. The angle I’m taking has more to do with the perceptual experience as opposed to actual factual truth: “spooky action at a distance”, stuff like that! Hope that clears it up and apologies for any misunderstanding!

  12. Posted January 10, 2009 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    previous generations would have had trouble distinguishing from the ostensibly paranormal,

    Yeah, that’s basically what I’m saying, but I am in fact pushing past that into ACTUAL paranormal subject matter as well!

  13. Posted January 10, 2009 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    Man, you wrote a whole book on this stuff and you’re still fumbling around like this? Too funny.

2 Trackbacks

  1. [...] Actually, come to think of it, this fits into my dump about telepresence, remote viewing, bilocation, transmitting free standing or free floating holographics into public spaces, etc etc. Articles With Similar Themes: [...]

  2. [...] After a little bit of a snafu over an image I appropriated for what was more or less a free-associative rant about “spooky action at a distance”, author Adam Greenfield (”head of design direction for service and user-interface design at Nokia“), who wrote the book “Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing” left a comment which clarifies his position on such paranormal topics as “scrying” and “remote viewing”, which he says have no place in his technological vision. For the purposes of keeping the record straight and not putting words into his mouth, I’m reproducing his comment here as its own post: What do I repudiate? Let’s see. “Scrying.” “Remote viewing.” Anything at all described as being “paranormal” or “extrasensory.” [...]

Public Domain 2010.TIM BOUCHER, FALL 2010.