<p>This may seem far fetched at first. Give the concepts given below some time. Do your research and experiments first before disregarding the information below. In other words: You might need to put in a little effort/work for the information below to mean anything to you.</p>

<p>Thomas Campbell his Theory Of Everything (TOE) has a view on this. He says you can focus your intent to get any information you desire. He compares a clear focussed intent with a proper database query. You then need to <code>be open</code> to receive the outcome, and not distort it with your analytical mind, at first.
He has several video's where he guides you through remote viewing what is inside boxes. I was stunned to experience accuracies in my perception, over multiple times, which has proven this mechanism to work (for me) without a doubt. </p>

<p>These are slides of one of his presentations. You can view the presentations on youtube. Search for "Remote Viewing by intent".
<a href="http://www.my-big-toe.com/uploads/HawaiiSlides.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.my-big-toe.com/uploads/HawaiiSlides.pdf</a></p>

<p>What he mentions in his book (<a href="http://www.intradimensions.net/mybigtoe.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.intradimensions.net/mybigtoe.pdf</a>) is that your brain is the interface, but not the storage location. </p>

<p>I see a relation here with recollecting past memories. They might well be those intent based queries. You can get better with practise on the mechanism to query, retreive and interpret the information. Whether it are 'your' memories or other information from a past event.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-01T16:47:10.850Z
This is a scientific site. I quickly looked for existing publications of Thomas Campbell, and could find none. In other words, none of his work has been peer reviewed, nor proven. Given that, I'm not sure a philosophical answer constitutes as an answer here.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-01T17:28:40.643Z
@StevenJeuris He is scientist who worked for NASA and military. The first who proposed the earth was a globe was lit on fire. Your loss if you disregard the info given above based on the mere fact that all pioneers simply don't have peers to review it. Scientist only think objectively, while what Tom describes is about subjective experience. How can I prove to you that I am conscious while dreaming and asked a person a question who teaches me life lessons? That's simply not done objectively. Your loss...
Mike de Klerk
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-01T17:32:34.900Z
And BTW. The CIA has made a protocol on remote viewing to train their agents. There is lots of evidence those things are reality. If you open up to it you will experience it yourself. That will be your scientific proof.
Mike de Klerk
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-02T14:32:15.543Z
@MikedeKlerk I'm with you, but you're wasting your time. Unfortunately it's not mainstream science, so you can't do much, so all [Paranormal](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/84880/paranormal) topics are censored here. A scientific theory must be testable or refutable predictions of what should happen or be seen. All NASA/CIA did some confidential projects, but actually nothing has been officially proven. And some former guys doesn't have any power. So I guess that kind of discoveries needs to come out of the academies to be real. Meanwhile they're just treated as pseudoscience.
kenorb
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-02T18:13:56.797Z
@kenorb Well, ... that _is_ the definition of pseudoscience. [_"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience) ... Just to note you do seem to agree with that definition.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-02T19:42:27.097Z
@StevenJeuris You're correct, because when there is no scientific explanation (e.g. when [National Geographic tested Qi Gong/Chi](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tb8bWbA678&feature=youtu.be&t=521)), despite the scientists seen the results on their own eyes but struggled to explain what just happened, they still call it pseudoscience, because when you repeat the test with some other random guys - you simply can't reproduce it - therefore it's not science, however it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Not to blame anybody, but that is the way how the modern science works in First World countries.
kenorb
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-02T20:54:28.853Z
Re answer: Realms of consciousness were studies and well explained in the ancient science writings (ex The Tibetan Book of the Dead), so modern science can only re-discover these findings again after it hit the blind spot by rejecting these. Many scientists did that already, but were rejected from the scientific circles as saying nonsense. The recent attempt was by Max Tegmark at [MIT](http://web.mit.edu/) (physicist) which says that [Consciousness Might Be a State of Matter](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/physicists-say-consciousness-might-be-a-state-of-matter/), so finger-crossed.
kenorb
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-03T05:50:44.100Z
How come the higgs boson was already (theoretical) science when its existence wasn't proven? Logical derivations required it to exist. Decades later it was proven with the LHC. With Campbells My Big TOE it is the same. He uses logical derivations, supported by his experiments (and he did experiments the scientific way). Let me ask this: what is the common accepted explanation for the double slit experiment? Look up Tom's explanation for the double slit experiment, it makes more sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E He is a scientist.
Mike de Klerk
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-03T05:52:51.390Z
@kenorb Whohoee! I found one! Thanks for the support (+1) and indeed, I'm probably wasting my time. But if it only triggers one reader to look beyond...
Mike de Klerk
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-30T10:57:22.407Z
@MikedeKlerk , just because 1 guy made a theory that happened to be true, doesn't mean every theory that has existed is true. 99% of theories that have been made in the past are false, and to pretend that they are valuable because of the 1% that statistically happened to be true is ridiculous and dumb. By all means, make up a theory, thats called innovation, but dont be a gullible idiot and believe in it because it makes you feel good. Back it up with evidence
tristo
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-30T11:04:27.217Z
Guys, while there might be evidence for certain theories, that doesn't mean you should believe in it. The scientific method is a very conservative method, and therefore a very reliable method. The methods you are promoting a simply, by logic, no where near as reliable as the modern scientific method. There are problems associated with your method, Take Aristotle's idea that we learn what we already know. This site is seeking very very reliable evidence, not kind of reliable or suggestive evidence
tristo
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-03T08:35:20.570Z
@tristo Did you read the MBT book? Thomas Campbell is an evangelist when it comes to scientific methods. That his findings are maybe beyond your comprehension doesn't mean they haven't been found the scientific way. How can a 64-bit CPU prove to a 32-bit CPU that a 64-bit precision outcome of a calculation is true? It can't. You can't teach consciousness. It must be developed by a conscious entity itself. So even though a result is found scientifically, if you don't have a mature enough consciousness (yet) you don't understand.
Mike de Klerk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-27T07:25:38.833Z
When I posted this answer I did not have this experience of my own. Recently, I could reproduce obtaining information by intent, without thinking. I was blindfolded, got the substances in my hands, I asked with intent what effect they would have on the human body. I described what information I got without even understanding what I was saying. The person next to me validated it from a textbook. I never read anything about these substances before. But the descriptions that came to my mind where accurate. As I said before: "Do your research ... before disregarding...". Be open minded.
Mike de Klerk
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-27T07:28:09.303Z
@StevenJeuris Please do not come with arguments that "it is not scientific". From my own experience, I have reproduced it too many times, to disregard this phenoma as chance or fluke. I know what I know. I think you don't know what you don't know. That is fine, your loss. I advise you to stay open to any possibility, instead of being your own limit to what is possible.
Mike de Klerk
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-31T09:22:01.000Z
2015-08-31T09:22:01.000Z
Mike de Klerk
<p>This question can be addressed in many ways. One approach that we have taken is to test memory for what has just recently happened a few seconds ago.  In these experiments we ask people to find a target in a simple visual search, and report its location.  For example we might show them 3 numbers and one letter and ask them to report the location of the letter.  After several minutes of doing this task, we give them a surprise question in which we ask them to tell us the actual letter that they had just located in the most recent trial (which they saw just a few seconds ago).  What we find is that it is easy to find situations in which our participants have very little memory of that letter. What is interesting about this is that they had just located the letter by virtue of the fact that it was a letter.  We presume, therefore, that the letter had briefly entered their awareness.  This can be debated, if one assumes that one can search for letters without actually experiencing the letters.  However we also found the same result with digit-parity tasks (i.e. find the odd number among evens or vice versa). </p>

<p>We called this effect attribute amnesia, since people seem to have amnesia for a specific attribute of a stimulus they had just selected.  </p>

<p>So while there are lots of ways to interpret this finding, the clearest result seems to be that performing a mental operation that selects a piece of visual information can leave a memory trace so weak that it cannot be remembered just a few seconds later.  Our interpretation is that the memory was never created in the first place.  We believe that the brain has filters on memory encoding that allow us to process information without remembering it.  It is also possible that it was encoded into memory and immediately forgotten but we do not favor this view as it seems less parsimonious than the filter that prevents encoding in the first place.  </p>

<p>Here are some articles on this phenomenon:
Chen, H., &amp; Wyble, B. (2015). Amnesia for object attributes: Failure to report attended information that had just reached conscious awareness. Psychological science, 26(2), 203-210.</p>

<p>Chen, H., Swan, G., &amp; Wyble, B. (2016). Prolonged focal attention without binding: Tracking a ball for half a minute without remembering its color. Cognition, 147, 144-148.</p>

<p>Chen, H., &amp; Wyble, B. (2016). Attribute amnesia reflects a lack of memory consolidation for attended information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(2), 225.</p>

<p>Here are some freely-available pre-prints of related articles if you cannot access the ones above:
<a href="https://psyarxiv.com/gbdcr/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://psyarxiv.com/gbdcr/</a>
<a href="https://psyarxiv.com/87yg2/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://psyarxiv.com/87yg2/</a></p>

<p>I apologize that not all of our work is available on preprint servers yet.  I'd be happy to email copies of published articles if you email me at bwyble@gmail.com</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-08-22T15:36:00.587Z
2019-08-23T20:19:18.943Z
2019-08-23T20:19:18.943Z
Brad Wyble
<p>There are people with supermemories, called <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/group-with-exceptional-memory-remembers-what-was-for-lunch-20-years-ago/" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>highly superior autobiographical memory</strong></a> (HSAM), i.e., the detailed recollection of events that occurred in the distant past. Although the recollection of, say the weather on this day 15 years ago may not be entirely accurate (errors occur) and may contain gaps (maybe an hour of sunshine on a predominantly rainy day is not recollected), their memories are clearly superior nonetheless. </p>

<p>I have heard these statements that all memories are stored in the brain and that the reason why we forget is because those memories are simply not accessible anymore. This would metaphorically be like the workings of a hard drive, where deletion of a file removes the flag, but the information is physically still stored, it is just invisible to the user and difficult to access. Following this reasoning, everyone would have HSAM in a way, barred that normally the memories can't readily be accessed. </p>

<p><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hypnosis-the-power-trance/200909/does-hypnosis-improve-memory" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hypnosis</a> seems to be capable of enhancing the <em>recollection of memories</em> in people without HSAM, and hence hypnosis is said to improve memory, indirectly indicating that memory storage indeed may generally be higher than apparent in everyday life, but that the brain needs a hand in retrieving those memories.</p>

<p>My question is:</p>

<ul>
<li>Are all conscious<sup>1</sup> memories stored, but access is permitted only when its regularly accessed, or enhanced through hypnosis or other means? In other words, does everyone have super memory like HSAM, but do people without HSAM simply lack an efficient way to access those distant memories? </li>
</ul>

<p><sub><em><sup>1</sup> With all conscious memories I mean memories of life events that were experienced while being awake and vigilant. For the sake of question focus, I suggest disregarding life events occurring during sleep, coma, anesthesia or other periods of reduced consciousness.</em></sub></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-31T06:36:18.100Z
This question has come up numerous times on the forum in a variety of different guises, but is essentially the same: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/3647/7001, http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/6402/7001, http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/9732/7001, http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/10464/7001, http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/4564/7001, http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/4385/7001, http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/10561/7001, http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/38/7001, http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/516/7001
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-31T10:47:45.863Z
@ArnonWeinberg - I checked the links and obviosuly they are all on memory and the limitations of it. However, it is just in one answer only that HSAM is specifically mentioned and not in any of the questions. I am of the opinion my question, regarding the weight on the storage-versus-retrieval component, that none of the questions mirror mine, and that none of the answers answer mine. Thanks!
AliceD
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-31T17:52:41.790Z
I guess there must be something about the question that I don't understand then, because I don't see what isn't already covered.  If the question is specifically about HSAM and the differences underlying this condition, then I would recommend editing the question to focus on that rather than the idea that we all have it.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-31T19:01:29.660Z
I think the question is already phrased in a way that is specific towards autobiographical memories. Maybe the confusing part was using 'conscious memory' to represent 'autobiographical memory' in the question, since technically all non-autobiographical memories would be conscious ones, too?
Sydney Maples
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-08-31T19:54:42.527Z
I have a related question specifically about dreams: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/2034/what-is-the-scientific-term-for-unexpected-spontaneous-dream-recall . Having experienced this first hand, it makes me think that I don't forget dreams and can enter "Random access" mode during the near sleep states I describe in the question.
Alex Stone
<memory>
Are all conscious experiences stored as memories?
AliceD
# Are all conscious experiences stored as memories?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-08-31)

There are people with supermemories, called [**highly superior autobiographical memory**](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/group-with-exceptional-memory-remembers-what-was-for-lunch-20-years-ago/) (HSAM), i.e., the detailed recollection of events that occurred in the distant past. Although the recollection of, say the weather on this day 15 years ago may not be entirely accurate (errors occur) and may contain gaps (maybe an hour of sunshine on a predominantly rainy day is not recollected), their memories are clearly superior nonetheless.

I have heard these statements that all memories are stored in the brain and that the reason why we forget is because those memories are simply not accessible anymore. This would metaphorically be like the workings of a hard drive, where deletion of a file removes the flag, but the information is physically still stored, it is just invisible to the user and difficult to access. Following this reasoning, everyone would have HSAM in a way, barred that normally the memories can't readily be accessed.

[Hypnosis](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hypnosis-the-power-trance/200909/does-hypnosis-improve-memory) seems to be capable of enhancing the *recollection of memories* in people without HSAM, and hence hypnosis is said to improve memory, indirectly indicating that memory storage indeed may generally be higher than apparent in everyday life, but that the brain needs a hand in retrieving those memories.

My question is:

* Are all conscious1 memories stored, but access is permitted only when its regularly accessed, or enhanced through hypnosis or other means? In other words, does everyone have super memory like HSAM, but do people without HSAM simply lack an efficient way to access those distant memories?

*1 With all conscious memories I mean memories of life events that were experienced while being awake and vigilant. For the sake of question focus, I suggest disregarding life events occurring during sleep, coma, anesthesia or other periods of reduced consciousness.*

**Tags:** memory

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This question has come up numerous times on the forum in a variety of different guises, but is essentially the same: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/3647/7001, http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/6402/7001, http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/9732/7001, http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/10464/7001, http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/4564/7001, http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/4385/7001, http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/10561/7001, http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/38/7001, http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/q/516/7001  
> **username_0**: @ArnonWeinberg - I checked the links and obviosuly they are all on memory and the limitations of it. However, it is just in one answer only that HSAM is specifically mentioned and not in any of the questions. I am of the opinion my question, regarding the weight on the storage-versus-retrieval component, that none of the questions mirror mine, and that none of the answers answer mine. Thanks!  
> **username_1**: I guess there must be something about the question that I don't understand then, because I don't see what isn't already covered.  If the question is specifically about HSAM and the differences underlying this condition, then I would recommend editing the question to focus on that rather than the idea that we all have it.  
> **username_2**: I think the question is already phrased in a way that is specific towards autobiographical memories. Maybe the confusing part was using 'conscious memory' to represent 'autobiographical memory' in the question, since technically all non-autobiographical memories would be conscious ones, too?  
> **username_3**: I have a related question specifically about dreams: http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/2034/what-is-the-scientific-term-for-unexpected-spontaneous-dream-recall . Having experienced this first hand, it makes me think that I don't forget dreams and can enter "Random access" mode during the near sleep states I describe in the question.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_8 on 2019-08-22. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

This question can be addressed in many ways. One approach that we have taken is to test memory for what has just recently happened a few seconds ago. In these experiments we ask people to find a target in a simple visual search, and report its location. For example we might show them 3 numbers and one letter and ask them to report the location of the letter. After several minutes of doing this task, we give them a surprise question in which we ask them to tell us the actual letter that they had just located in the most recent trial (which they saw just a few seconds ago). What we find is that it is easy to find situations in which our participants have very little memory of that letter. What is interesting about this is that they had just located the letter by virtue of the fact that it was a letter. We presume, therefore, that the letter had briefly entered their awareness. This can be debated, if one assumes that one can search for letters without actually experiencing the letters. However we also found the same result with digit-parity tasks (i.e. find the odd number among evens or vice versa).

We called this effect attribute amnesia, since people seem to have amnesia for a specific attribute of a stimulus they had just selected.

So while there are lots of ways to interpret this finding, the clearest result seems to be that performing a mental operation that selects a piece of visual information can leave a memory trace so weak that it cannot be remembered just a few seconds later. Our interpretation is that the memory was never created in the first place. We believe that the brain has filters on memory encoding that allow us to process information without remembering it. It is also possible that it was encoded into memory and immediately forgotten but we do not favor this view as it seems less parsimonious than the filter that prevents encoding in the first place.

Here are some articles on this phenomenon:
Chen, H., & Wyble, B. (2015). Amnesia for object attributes: Failure to report attended information that had just reached conscious awareness. Psychological science, 26(2), 203-210.

Chen, H., Swan, G., & Wyble, B. (2016). Prolonged focal attention without binding: Tracking a ball for half a minute without remembering its color. Cognition, 147, 144-148.

Chen, H., & Wyble, B. (2016). Attribute amnesia reflects a lack of memory consolidation for attended information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(2), 225.

Here are some freely-available pre-prints of related articles if you cannot access the ones above:
<https://psyarxiv.com/gbdcr/>
<https://psyarxiv.com/87yg2/>

I apologize that not all of our work is available on preprint servers yet. I'd be happy to email copies of published articles if you email me at bwyble@gmail.com


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2015-08-31. Score: -3

This may seem far fetched at first. Give the concepts given below some time. Do your research and experiments first before disregarding the information below. In other words: You might need to put in a little effort/work for the information below to mean anything to you.

Thomas Campbell his Theory Of Everything (TOE) has a view on this. He says you can focus your intent to get any information you desire. He compares a clear focussed intent with a proper database query. You then need to `be open` to receive the outcome, and not distort it with your analytical mind, at first.
He has several video's where he guides you through remote viewing what is inside boxes. I was stunned to experience accuracies in my perception, over multiple times, which has proven this mechanism to work (for me) without a doubt.

These are slides of one of his presentations. You can view the presentations on youtube. Search for "Remote Viewing by intent".
<http://www.my-big-toe.com/uploads/HawaiiSlides.pdf>

What he mentions in his book (<http://www.intradimensions.net/mybigtoe.pdf>) is that your brain is the interface, but not the storage location.

I see a relation here with recollecting past memories. They might well be those intent based queries. You can get better with practise on the mechanism to query, retreive and interpret the information. Whether it are 'your' memories or other information from a past event.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: This is a scientific site. I quickly looked for existing publications of Thomas Campbell, and could find none. In other words, none of his work has been peer reviewed, nor proven. Given that, I'm not sure a philosophical answer constitutes as an answer here.  
> **username_4**: @StevenJeuris He is scientist who worked for NASA and military. The first who proposed the earth was a globe was lit on fire. Your loss if you disregard the info given above based on the mere fact that all pioneers simply don't have peers to review it. Scientist only think objectively, while what Tom describes is about subjective experience. How can I prove to you that I am conscious while dreaming and asked a person a question who teaches me life lessons? That's simply not done objectively. Your loss...  
> **username_4**: And BTW. The CIA has made a protocol on remote viewing to train their agents. There is lots of evidence those things are reality. If you open up to it you will experience it yourself. That will be your scientific proof.  
> **username_6**: @MikedeKlerk I'm with you, but you're wasting your time. Unfortunately it's not mainstream science, so you can't do much, so all [Paranormal](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/84880/paranormal) topics are censored here. A scientific theory must be testable or refutable predictions of what should happen or be seen. All NASA/CIA did some confidential projects, but actually nothing has been officially proven. And some former guys doesn't have any power. So I guess that kind of discoveries needs to come out of the academies to be real. Meanwhile they're just treated as pseudoscience.  
> **username_5**: @username_6 Well, ... that _is_ the definition of pseudoscience. [_"Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience) ... Just to note you do seem to agree with that definition.  
> **username_6**: @StevenJeuris You're correct, because when there is no scientific explanation (e.g. when [National Geographic tested Qi Gong/Chi](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tb8bWbA678&feature=youtu.be&t=521)), despite the scientists seen the results on their own eyes but struggled to explain what just happened, they still call it pseudoscience, because when you repeat the test with some other random guys - you simply can't reproduce it - therefore it's not science, however it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Not to blame anybody, but that is the way how the modern science works in First World countries.  
> **username_6**: Re answer: Realms of consciousness were studies and well explained in the ancient science writings (ex The Tibetan Book of the Dead), so modern science can only re-discover these findings again after it hit the blind spot by rejecting these. Many scientists did that already, but were rejected from the scientific circles as saying nonsense. The recent attempt was by Max Tegmark at [MIT](http://web.mit.edu/) (physicist) which says that [Consciousness Might Be a State of Matter](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/physicists-say-consciousness-might-be-a-state-of-matter/), so finger-crossed.  
> **username_4**: How come the higgs boson was already (theoretical) science when its existence wasn't proven? Logical derivations required it to exist. Decades later it was proven with the LHC. With Campbells My Big TOE it is the same. He uses logical derivations, supported by his experiments (and he did experiments the scientific way). Let me ask this: what is the common accepted explanation for the double slit experiment? Look up Tom's explanation for the double slit experiment, it makes more sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E He is a scientist.  
> **username_4**: @username_6 Whohoee! I found one! Thanks for the support (+1) and indeed, I'm probably wasting my time. But if it only triggers one reader to look beyond...  
> **username_7**: @MikedeKlerk , just because 1 guy made a theory that happened to be true, doesn't mean every theory that has existed is true. 99% of theories that have been made in the past are false, and to pretend that they are valuable because of the 1% that statistically happened to be true is ridiculous and dumb. By all means, make up a theory, thats called innovation, but dont be a gullible idiot and believe in it because it makes you feel good. Back it up with evidence  
> **username_7**: Guys, while there might be evidence for certain theories, that doesn't mean you should believe in it. The scientific method is a very conservative method, and therefore a very reliable method. The methods you are promoting a simply, by logic, no where near as reliable as the modern scientific method. There are problems associated with your method, Take Aristotle's idea that we learn what we already know. This site is seeking very very reliable evidence, not kind of reliable or suggestive evidence  
> **username_4**: @username_7 Did you read the MBT book? Thomas Campbell is an evangelist when it comes to scientific methods. That his findings are maybe beyond your comprehension doesn't mean they haven't been found the scientific way. How can a 64-bit CPU prove to a 32-bit CPU that a 64-bit precision outcome of a calculation is true? It can't. You can't teach consciousness. It must be developed by a conscious entity itself. So even though a result is found scientifically, if you don't have a mature enough consciousness (yet) you don't understand.  
> **username_4**: When I posted this answer I did not have this experience of my own. Recently, I could reproduce obtaining information by intent, without thinking. I was blindfolded, got the substances in my hands, I asked with intent what effect they would have on the human body. I described what information I got without even understanding what I was saying. The person next to me validated it from a textbook. I never read anything about these substances before. But the descriptions that came to my mind where accurate. As I said before: "Do your research ... before disregarding...". Be open minded.  
> **username_4**: @StevenJeuris Please do not come with arguments that "it is not scientific". From my own experience, I have reproduced it too many times, to disregard this phenoma as chance or fluke. I know what I know. I think you don't know what you don't know. That is fine, your loss. I advise you to stay open to any possibility, instead of being your own limit to what is possible.  

---

