Take a look

I just took a look at the Survival After Death site and was impressed by the sheer quantity (and quality) of articles they offer on afterlife research.

The articles page is here.

Also, there's a lengthy list of recommended books to peruse.

And many full-length books you can read.

Lots of bios, too.

The site was always a good resource, but I don't remember it being this comprehensive.

Comments

[Zetetic_chick]

Yes, that site is one of the best online references on survival research. There is a lot of valuable information there.

On other topic, the videos of the Mind-Body Symposium (that includes non-materialist neuroscientists Mario Beauregard and Jeffrey Schwartz, quantum physicist Henry Stapp and researchers like Bruce Greyson) are available in youtube:

http://ru.youtube.com/user/MindBodySymposium

Currently, I'm re-reading a book by one of them (Henry Stapp). Stapp's excellent papers are online, I specially recommend his "Physicalism versus Quantum Mechanics" paper:

http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/Physicalism.pdf

[Ryan]

Thanks for the tip, MP - I feared this great archive and public service had disappeared ... too many death/survival puns :-) ... I'll resist the urge ...

[Art]

I got and read one of my most favorite life after death books from that site, Dr. William Barrett's Death Bed Visions. I think I've read it at least three time all the way through now. Very few books are interesting enough for me to read more than once. I've read Dr. Melvin Morse's Closer To The Light about the near death experiences of children twice, and of course Michael Talbot's The Holographic Universe, Beyond the Quantum, and Mysticism and the New Physics two times each. Oh yeah, I think I've read Raymond Moody's book Life After Life more than once also.

[Hope Rivers]

Came across that site years back and read every book they had at the time. Its changed since then, some of the books I read are no longer there.

[Art]

Speaking of death bed visions, I wish there were more books about it than there are. I just love reading them. I find them so "hope filled." To me there are just as evidential or point towards some kind of life after death as near death experiences. I think I've pretty much read everything there is available about death bed visions? At The Hour of Death, Barrett's book, One Last Hug Before I Go, and a few online sites about them. There's way more out there about after death communications (ADC's) than there is about death bed visions.

[Forrest]

Michael, I very much appreciate your blog, of which I've become a regular reader. I find your own writings, as well as the comments of your readers, to be very valuable, and I much appreciate the open-minded but still critical attitude you display to matters "of life and death", as you define them.

One such case that's fascinated me, but on which I don't know what to think, is that of Ida Craddock, the early feminist and sex education writer, who claimed to have had a long-time marriage, evidently including physical intercourse, with a spirit. She was clearly a highly intelligent and thoughtful woman, but this relationship goes quite a bit beyond my "boggle factor".

Have you ever read her writings? If so, what do you think?

There's site about her here, with html versions of some of her writings:

http://www.idacraddock.org/

and there are pdf versions of some of the same writings, plus one or two others, here:

http://www.makaru.net/archives/Craddock/default.asp

I don't know if her experiences would count as "physical mediumship", but if you haven't already read about them, I think you'd find them quite interesting.

In any event, thanks again for the fascinating blog, and best wishes for 2009.

[dmduncan]

I'm not familiar with this materialization mediumship, but if the photos in that link are representative of what it's about, then it's hard for me to suppress a laugh.

What's with the fabric coming out of their noses and mouths? Ectoplasm is it? Yeah, sure it is.

Now I don't know who the people were who did the investigating on those cases, but I'm fairly sure that their notions of stringent controls to prevent fraud were radically different than what I would have applied.

[william]

“Now I don't know who the people were who did the investigating on those cases, but I'm fairly sure that their notions of stringent controls to prevent fraud were radically different than what I would have applied.”

It is best to do the research on what controls they used then make a decision on your belief if these photos are valid. We humans tend to make statements based on opinion rather than on our research.

As far a laughing at those photos do you have any idea how many scientists have been laughed at and condemned by their peers when they have made a new discovery. Example heavier than air flight is impossible.

One of the people that did the research on some of those photos was considered one of the greatest scientists in England at that time. It is interesting to me that when he invited some of his peers to be witness to these phenomena most declined to attend believing they were fraud without investigation.

That is not the scientific method but paradigm paralysis.

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks, Forrest, for your kind words.

I'm afraid I hadn't heard of Ida Craddock until now. When I have time, I'll read some of the material you linked to.

What's with the fabric coming out of their noses and mouths? Ectoplasm is it?

I didn't see any photos of ectoplasm on the Web pages I opened. Where did you find them?

[dmduncan]

Yeah, William, but it doesn't matter how famous the man was, or even what a good scientist he was. Anyone can be fooled, particularly if they are willing to believe, and who can testify to his personal state of mind? No one but he can do that, and whether his private thoughts and feelings match his public statements is something we will not know.

Haven't we already been reminded of this lately? Where many reputable people who should have known better cast their fortunes with Bernard Madoff?

Skepticism can also save your ass from buying the Brooklyn Bridge.

Now, looking at those photos of cheesecloth coming out of a woman's nose really does not make me interested to learn more.

And why? Because my paradigm is paralyzed? Hardly. And I think the bulk of my past posts here prove that. More likely, my healthy skepticism just isn't malfunctioning.

It has the feel of something concocted, like psychic surgery. I'd be very surprised if any competent modern magician couldn't pull off the same thing under the same imposed conditions.

[dmduncan]

And I'd also like to point out how Harvard psychiatrist Dr. John Mack, a reputable man who took alien abduction cases seriously was fooled by a woman who intended to do just that. And though it was his job to know the difference between someone who was making up a story and someone who really believed what they were saying, he couldn't tell the difference.

MP, click on the photographs link in the left margin and explore the thumbnails. Here's a pic of Helen Duncan:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org.uk/photographs/duncan/baby.htm

[Michael H]

Anyone can be fooled, particularly if they are willing to believe . . .

I think the Francis Bacon quote that's found on the Online Library page applies here: "Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, but to weigh and consider."

While I have to agree with dm on the Helen Duncan photos (and I seem to recall a previous post by Mr. Prescott questioning these as well), the sheer volume of articles, books and other information at the site does raise the question: Were all of these people equally deluded?

When the names of the writers, past and present, include the likes of Myers, James, Lodge, Braude, Radin, Stevenson and Wallace - and this is a partial list, compiled from just the article page, of one web site - my skepticism tells me that there's something happening here.

[Michael Prescott]

MP, click on the photographs link in the left margin and explore the thumbnails.

Thanks. I thought you were referring to the Ira Craddock pages mentioned in an earlier comment.

I agree that the Helen Duncan photos are very damaging. Even more damaging is Harry Price's investigation of Duncan. A lot of information about that can be found here. Note especially "The Duncan Seance Photographs" and "The Cheesecloth Worshipers." The latter article includes testimony by Duncan's former housekeeper that Duncan gave her yards of gunky cheesecloth to launder after every séance.

My personal opinion/guess about Duncan is that she had some abilities as a mental medium, but limited or nonexistent talents as a physical medium. I suspect that her ambitious husband pushed her into adding physical effects to her séances to increase her notoriety. (Of course this is only conjecture.)

[dmduncan]

The confuting or believing come after the weighing and considering, and sometimes it happens quickly, as in this case, or when you get an email from someone in Nigeria informing you that you've just been awarded ten million dollars, and all you have to do is send them a few hundred dollars to process the paperwork.

[william]

“And why? Because my paradigm is paralyzed? Hardly. And I think the bulk of my past posts here prove that. More likely, my healthy skepticism just isn't malfunctioning.”

The human mind is an interesting phenomenon. It can convince itself that it already knows prior to investigation. And it even gets more interesting even after investigation the human mind can convince itself it knows the answer in spite of the evidence. Do we really have the ability to evaluate our own level of skepticism?

“Now, looking at those photos of cheesecloth coming out of a woman's nose really does not make me interested to learn more.”

Some quotes we may want to ponder. Or not.

“The greatest skeptic concerning paranormal phenomena is invariably the man who knows the least about them.” H.H. Price

John K. Hart: "Nothing can prevent you from learning the truth so much as the belief that you already know it."

Michel de Montaigne: "Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know."

Arnold H. Glasgow: "The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion."

My point here is not about whether physical mediumship is fraud or not fraud but the response we make based on opinion prior to investigation or real life experiences. This is why I suspect we learn little from others experiences and we have to do the journey ourselves.

Other’s experiences and wisdom can point the finger to truths but realization of those truths is an inside job.

[Leo MacDonald]

I agree it is a very valuable source for information about survival after death.

[dmduncan]

"Do we really have the ability to evaluate our own level of skepticism?"

Yes, we do, but that is not to say that all of us use that ability.

And William, all those quotes do not make fraud truth, and nonsense is still nonsense no matter how you try to defend it.

The opposite to paradigm paralysis is paradigm infatuation, which is really another form of paradigm paralysis that prevents you from detecting BS.

And those quotes can as easily, if not better, apply to your own position if you are intent on defending the cheesecloth emanations from Helen Duncan's nose.

The fact is, William, people can and do every day make accurate and instantaneous judgments about facts in the world around which they have to navigate and interact with. There's even a name for it, thin slicing. And that it isn't always accurate does not mean it is not ever accurate. And that we do not always know, or know that or how we know, does not mean that we do not know anyway.

So no, I am not interested in reevaluating my statement. Cheesecloth out the nose is bunk. And I know it the same way I know that the offer from the guy in Nigeria is bunk, although I've never met him and have no particular reason to call him a crook other than my instincts.

And disparaging instincts or thin slicing isn't going to rescue the cheesecloth from the bunk heap.

And interestingly, without knowing more details about the particulars, MP provided links that support the dmduncan bunk theory of Helen Duncan cheesecloth rhino-cranial emanations.

[Michael H]

I agree with dm.

Insistence on infinite open-mindedness can lead to credulity, not to mention indecision. The best approach I've found is to call it like I see it, while remaining aware that I very well may see whatever "it" is differently at some point.

That said, I'll likely go to my grave convinced that Helen Duncan was barfing up cheesecloth, and that ignoring those Nigerian emails was the right call.

[william]

“if you are intent on defending the cheesecloth emanations from Helen Duncan's nose”

I never once defended Helen Duncan’s cheesecloth emanations. What I was referring to is someone that wants to laugh at something they know little about or has not done or revealed to the reader their research. You have no idea if it was cheesecloth or not.

It is your belief that it was cheesecloth. That is ok to state one’s belief but it was the way you stated it. We must be careful whom we laugh at as we may be making a fool of ourselves not them.

I seem to remember a maid of Helen’s stating she used to wash that cheesecloth. That is a valuable piece of data and had you mentioned that data that you based your statement on then that is a different story. Even so one piece of data is still making decisions on fragile ground.

Many have been laughed at and later found out to have been a valid phenomenon or discovery. The world is very resistant to anything outside its accepted paradigms. Those quotes were powerful quotes but unfortunately often taken lightly by most who read them.

“although I've never met him and have no particular reason to call him a crook other than my instincts.” There is an overwhelming amount of evidence on the Internet that the guy from Nigeria is bunk so you don’t have to rely on your instincts.

“The best approach I've found is to call it like I see it, while remaining aware that I very well may see whatever "it" is differently at some point.”

This is a totally different viewpoint than the one I was referring to. From my point of view we must try to be receptive of how our beliefs can influence our views. I personally find that most people speak from opinion rather than research. There is usually a story behind the story.

“Insistence on infinite open-mindedness”

Please point out where I was stating we must always have infinite open mindedness. I would suspect there is only one with infinite open mindedness and that would be a deity with pure awareness.

Keep in mind if we had infinite open mindedness we would not exist as a perceived separate entity. I.e. person. It is our ignorance that allows us to be a perceived individual. Ok our unawareness.

There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. - Søren Kierkegaard (1813-55)

[william]

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/CJEVP

anyone interested in EVP may be interested in this site as tomorrow night an interesting speaker will be speaking.

[dmduncan]

"There is an overwhelming amount of evidence on the Internet that the guy from Nigeria is bunk so you don’t have to rely on your instincts."

I don't need to see any of that evidence to know it's nonsense and, in fact, I was dismissing those emails without doing any research on them at all. And it turned out that my instincts were correct knowing nothing at all about what evidence was out there.

"There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true;"

As in, for example, believing that Helen Duncan's nose was channeling a cheesecloth factory.

"...the other is to refuse to believe what is true."

As in, for example, that Helen Duncan was hoaxing it.

And knowledge is complicated. In some cases there is overlap between knowledge and belief so that we can legitimately say the thing known is both knowledge and belief. In addition, some beliefs are true beliefs, and some are false. Calling something belief is not an argument that what is believed is also not true or mere opinion.

Beliefs which are true can also be called knowledge, whether you are a first person witness or not.

So the question is not whether I've done research, but whether my judgment is mistaken, and in this case I don't think it is.

And like Michael H., I find myself not fully closing the door on anything. But 99 percent of the way is still open enough to see what's going on, while not open enough for a salesman's shoe.

[Michael H]

Please point out where I was stating we must always have infinite open mindedness.

It was not directly stated, William, but it is implied when you're choosing to use the Helen Duncan example in support of what is an otherwise valid observation.

I have myself pointed out much the same as the quotes you provided earlier - sometimes at great length. But it's also true that one can trap themselves into thinking they're being "objective" when they're in fact just rationalizing credulity.

Helen Duncan is barfing cheesecloth. If you want to argue that there's some great mystery involved in this, or that this is an instance when one needs to be aware of their susceptibility to paradigm paralysis, I suppose you're free to. I personally think that this is an instance where choosing to argue the point weakens an otherwise immensely important point, because she's quite obviously barfing cheesecloth.

From my point of view we must try to be receptive of how our beliefs can influence our views.

Of course it's important to be vigilant about our beliefs. That's what I'm referring to when I write that I may very well come to see things differently at some point. In the meantime I can only call things like I see them, and be aware that most everyone else is doing the same thing.

At the same time, I seriously doubt that the things I may come to see differently will find Helen Duncan among them. I'd wager that I'll always interpret her as barfing cheesecloth . . . because she's barfing cheesecloth.

There are plenty of genuine mysteries. I see no reason to create additional mysteries via examples such as this one.

[william]

“So the question is not whether I've done research, but whether my judgment is mistaken, and in this case I don't think it is.”

Well at least you are no longer suppressing a laugh. That’s progress. It was the suppressing the laugh part and how you indicated you could do a better job of sitting up stringent controls that I found interesting. Any idea how many times the Wright brothers were laughed at. Or the folks that claimed that the earth was not the center of the universe.

What I find interesting is how we humans today don’t think we can make the same mistakes as those in the past. Somehow we think we are immune from such mistakes and we can rely on our instincts. And even more interesting is often we will defend our instincts and beliefs in spite of the evidence. We see this all the time with the ultra skeptics.

“Assertions of impossibility are based on the metaphysical creeds of the scientists of the day.” C.J. Ducasse

[dmduncan]

William, I think you may be mistaking my criticism of that particular case for criticism of the entire field of study.

I am not.

Any case where a fraud was perpetrated is also obviously a case where the controls were too weak to prevent the fraud. And it doesn't help the field when those on the outside looking in see its insiders defending the nonsense that it also produces, of which there is plenty.

Defending nonsense validates to the skeptics that the nonsense is typical and it's all woo woo crap, while that the skeptical positions themselves frequently reduce to absurdity and are irrational is carefully hidden by the misdirection that tearing cases like this to pieces creates an opportunity for.

[william]

It is my observation that we don’t have enough information to properly make any kind of evaluation as to the validity of her physical mediumship.

The research I have done on Helen Duncan seems to suggest that she had some psychic abilities so much so the government had her locked up during World War II for revealing some information they wanted kept secret.

At least I think that was Helen Duncan, my memory is suspect on this research as I did it many years ago.

As an organizational consultant I saw time after time organizations working on problems for sometimes decades making decisions based on limited data. We taught them how to define the system, collect the data, analyze the data and make a much more intelligent decision as to the root cause and possible solution to the problem.

Also when I look at history I see time and time again how we humans reject new discoveries because they are outside our established personal and societal beliefs.

Also I find it interesting that when Crookes was investigating Florence Cook’s mediumship many of his peers would not travel just a few miles to experience the phenomena or lack of phenomena for themselves. They already “knew” she was a fraud before investigation.

[Teri]

"Stapp's excellent papers are online, I specially recommend his "Physicalism versus Quantum Mechanics" paper" ...ZC

Interesting link, ZC, though the maths is opaque to me. I like Stapp’s implication that free will is real and that conscious intention and effort lie in the realm of QM and help to create what we mistakenly call “classical reality” (which is really a psychophysical continuum). I can understand how this allows our own choices to affect the future course of our lives, but I don’t understand how this would create the “objective tendency” of Nature (including all the galaxies and black holes). He doesn’t seem to address this.

[Patrick]

Interesting site, Michael. What do you think of Braude's arguments for super-psi as the best explanation of NDEs?

He appears to think that the brain is needed for psi to work. This requires him to overlook the fact that some NDEs occur when there is no measurable brain activity. Aside from that, I think he dismisses the problems with the hallucination hypothesis.

But what are your thoughts?

- Pat

[sonic]

That is an interesting resource- thank-you.
I have worked in a hospital and was fortunate enough to revive a number of people who had heart attacks.
Each one of those people told me what happened. I would listen and I didn't argue with them (Most of the other people in the hospital at that time wouldn't listen and/or would argue)
Having witnessed these situations and listened to the stories first-hand what I can say is the possibilty of life after death is real.

[Zetetic_chick]

but I don’t understand how this would create the “objective tendency” of Nature (including all the galaxies and black holes). He doesn’t seem to address this

That's an excellent question, Teri. I've asked it to myself several times.

Stapp addresses some of these questions in his lastest book "Mindful Universe" (highly recommended).

My provisional opinion is:

If consciousness (or, more exactly, conscious efforts) affect the reality (the objetive world), then the logical inference is that some type of "consciousness" (not necessarily human) is needed to the existence of the universe previous to the appareance of human beings. That inference is consistent with afterlife evidence (that suggest that consciousness is not "created" by the brain, but exists with independence of it and previous to it, as evidenced by reincarnation research)

If consciousness is the real and primary substance of the universe, then we could expect that conscious efforts (of one or more conscious spiritual beings) will affect the "objetive reality" and produce objective tendences susceptible of being researched for other conscious beings in any time (it could be responsable to the origin of the universe too).

Could be that a universal consciousness (GOD?) is responsible to the origin of the universe and its fundamental structure and basic organization? I don't know (in Euan Squires' book, he suggest it as a possibility).

Process 1 (in Stapp's conception, derived from Von Neumman) isn't limited to human beings (even thought in quantum theory is considered like that for pragmatic reasons). Actually, it refers to efforts of free and conscious agents

If human conscious agents can affect the physical world, is not irrational to consider that pure consciousness (in a expanded and universal sense) not only can affect it too, but created it and organized it in a fundamental level too. If God exists, then one of its fundamental actions should be something like that.

Given the potential spiritual implication of Stapp's theory (consistent with parapsychology, afterlife evidence, non-materialist neuroscience, and common sense view on free will and the causal power of human mind), materialists have to fight it with all they got, to avoid a scientific conclusion that destroys their worldview.

I recommend the following paper by Stapp and non-materialists neuroscientists Mario Beuahregard and Jeffrey Schwartz. They propose a theory of mind-brain interaction based on quantum mechanics:

http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/PTRS.pdf

It's easy to read and understand, and doesn't use complex technical language or mathematical formulas.

ZC

[Paul Welsh]

When Helen Duncan was prosecuted under the Witchcraft act there were dozens of respectable people who gave evidence to support her ability to demonstrate phenomena and against her being fraudulent. Were they all so deceived that they were convinced they had seen, touched and talked to close relatives who had passed on? Possible I suppose.

Did they all testify in court open to cross examination by one of the foremost prosecutors of the day for nothing or because they were deluded? Possible, but likely? I have seen direct testimony from those who have attended Helen's seances. I have to say the people concerned did not strike me as deluded or gullible or in any doubt about what they witnessed.

In fact Helen Duncan offered to demonstrate to the jury - the offer was declined but wasn't that a dangerous offer to make for someone who knew she was fraudulent?

I am not saying that Helen Duncan didn't resort to fraud but I think there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that she wasn't always fraudulent. It seems to me this happens in most walks of life and research, not good, but human nature.

Personally I find the pictures ludicrous. But perhaps they are not representative of what other witnessed in private seances?

(as an aside I understand the servant who stated she washed the cheesecloth later retracted).

[dmduncan]

Regarding the cheesecloth emanations——I repeat, regarding the cheesecloth emanations——looks like the link to Harry Price's investigation which MP provided says it all.

I was especially disgusted by the case of Mary Toft who "deceived many medical men by concealing live rabbits in the vaginal passage."

http://www.harryprice.co.uk/Seance/Duncan/duncan-plates-05.htm#PlateX

Looks like Helen let herself off easy.

[Zerdini]

Am I the only one who has ever handled ectoplasm?

Not Helen Duncan's I hasten to add.

I have felt it as soft as cotton wool one minute and as hard as steel the next.

It didn't bear the slightest resemblance to cheesecloth.

[Michael H]

Not to rain on the Stapp party, but those interested in his theory might want to consider Ulrich Mohrhoff's observations at the conclusion of his review of Irreducible Mind. The full review is available at the AntiMatters site.

What Kelly means by “the ontological implications of quantum theory” are the speculations of Berkeley physicist Henry Stapp. By giving Stapp’s ideas pride of place in their final chapter entitled “Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century,” the authors of IM do themselves a disservice. Stapp’s theory of the brain-mind interface is built on metaphysical quicksand.

The quantum formalism consists of algorithms that serve to calculate the probabilities of the possible outcomes of (as yet) unperformed measurements on the basis of the actual (or assumed) outcomes of performed measurements. The rest is metaphysical embroidery. The formalism is consistent and, despite its far-ranging predictions, has never been refuted by a single “white crow.” As Dieks (1996) put it, “[p]aradoxes and bewilderment only occur if one wonders about how the calculated and predicted experimental outcomes can be realized by natural processes.” This should not come as a surprise, for while the deterministic correlations of classical physics can be interpreted in terms of causes and effects, the probabilistic correlations of quantum physics do not admit of causal interpretations. So much for Kelly’s belief (courtesy of Stapp) that quantum theory “explains everything explainable in classical terms, and a vast number of additional things as well” (IM, p. 611).

One of the formidable interpretational challenges posed by the quantum theory is its inevitable reference to measurement outcomes. What earns measurements this special status in the fundamental theoretical framework of physics? Under the influence of positivism, measurements and their outcomes had come to be known as “observations,” and since the advent of the theory of relativity in 1905, frames of reference were called “observers.” So when the founding fathers of the quantum theory were searching for an answer to the above question in the mid to late twenties, what was more obvious than to attribute the special status of measurements to the consciousness of the observer? Like a deus ex machina, consciousness saved the day. Stapp’s theory is an elaboration of this red herring.

On the subject of the alleged violation of the principle of energy conservation by mental causation Kelly writes,

“It is hardly self-evident that this principle applies without restriction to a world that also contains minds. It assumes precisely what we are challenging, that classical physicalism is correct and complete, and can fully explain both brains and minds. (IM, p. 611).”

By “classical physicalism” Kelly means physicalism with regard to the laws of classical physics. What about physicalism with regard to the laws of quantum physics? Kelly apparently accepts Stapp’s (2004, p. 23) claim that his metaphysical elaboration of the quantum formalism not only “makes consciousness causally effective” but also “is compatible with all known laws of physics, including the law of conservation of energy.” It is understandable that Stapp, a physicist, prefers his libertarian account of mental causation to be free from violations of known physical laws, but if were so, then Stapp’s model would be just physicalism with a subjective side slapped on.

It seems to me that Kelly et al. would be in a better position to argue their case if they pointed out that physicists do not understand the processes that underpin the quantum mechanical correlation laws any better than psychologists understand libertarian free will or parapsychologists understand PK or ESP.

Mohrhoff goes on to suggest that Vedantic ontology may hold the answers.

The evidence presented in this ground-breaking book is cumulatively overwhelming and likely to persuade most open-minded readers. Whether a satisfactory alternative scientific theory can be found is less certain, and will depend, inter alia, on the extent to which the label “scientific” bears revision. For example, would an in principle omnipotent, yet deliberately self-constraining force, such as that inherent in the Vedantic Brahman or Sat-Chit-Ananda, qualify?

There is, in fact, much about contemporary physics that points in the direction of a Vedantic ontology. For example, in the quantum domain everything is possible — that is to say, every conceivable measurement outcome has a probability greater than zero — unless it violates a conservation law. This means that in the domain in which the validity of the laws of quantum physics is well-established, we never have to explain why something is possible. We only have to explain why certain things are not possible. What else does this indicate but the self-constrained working of an omnipotent force?

If we accept this conclusion, then the relevant questions no longer concern the underlying mechanisms or processes, inasmuch as it would be absurd to try and explain the working of an omnipotent force.

Mohrhoff has also written a paper critical of Stapp, available in PDF, The World According to Quantum Mechanics (or, the 18 errors of Henry P. Stapp).

[Zetetic_chick]

Mohrhoff has written several criticisms of Stapp's interpretation. In his article "The 18 Fold-Way" Stapp criticizes Mohrhoff's view

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aquant-ph%2F0108092

In other but related topic, see this news:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080129125354.htm

Scientific evidence support the potential negative consequences of a consistently assumed philosophical materialism (that denies free will in a similar way that denies the existence, or the causal power, of the mind)

[sonic]

Stapp'a book "Mindful Universe" is the finest physics book written. It is clear and correct and understandable. It is actually useful in everyday life (understanding the quatum zeno effect and its use is a good thing)
There are other interpretations of physics. None of them work. There are complaints about how physics is dualist (mind-matter), but the complainers have not produced an interpretaion that works.
At what point does this anti-science crusade (trying to take mind out of physics) get tiresome?
Ed Kelly is a brave soul- and a fine human too. His book does describe the phenomena and does go into the issues well. It is the best book on that I am aware of.

[dmduncan]

Zerdini, never handled the stuff. But I'd like to know where the piece you handled came from and where it went.

[Zerdini]

"Zerdini, never handled the stuff. But I'd like to know where the piece you handled came from and where it went."

It came from the solar plexus and returned to the solar plexus.

[Teri]

ZC, MH & sonic, now I'm confused. Where is a girl supposed to start? Which is the best exposition of consciousness & qm physics book for a laywoman?

[Zetetic_chick]

Teri, in my opinion, the best exposition of consciousness and quantum mechanics are (in this order):

1)Bruce Rosemblum's "The Quantum Enigma". It's probably the best choice as an introduction for lay persons (like you and me).

http://quantumenigma.com/

2)Henry Stapp's "Mindful Universe"

Stapp's book is easy to read too, but it addresses more details about consciousness and its interaction with the physical world. Also, it responds to some criticism of Stapp's interpretation and comments some aspects about philosophy of consciousness.

Teri, if you want, write an e-mail to me (the address is in the profile of my blog). I'd like to discuss some things with you.

[Michael H]

Hi Teri - I don't have a clue, because I think QM is a blind alley that leads us away from the true answers. I agree with Mohrhoff that it's absurd to try and explain the workings of an omnipotent force. A clearer articulation of this point is contained in the paper (PDF) On Math, Matter and Mind. The abstract begins, with emphasis added:

We discuss the nature of reality in the ontological context of Penrose’s math-matter-mind triangle. The triangle suggests the circularity of the widespread view that math arises from the mind, the mind arises out of matter, and that matter can be explained in terms of math. Non-physicists should be wary of any claim that modern physics leads us to any particular resolution of this circularity, since even the sample of three theoretical physicists writing this paper hold three divergent views.

Although I admire Stapp's willingness to challenge materialist assumptions, I also think he's ensnared in an epistemology that tells him that it's possible to arrive at absolute truth through reason, which puts him in the position of battling the materialists on their ground. I'd suggest that this assumption is in error - we can't think our way to understanding the universal consciousness because what we're thinking with is itself constructed from the universal consciousness. That doesn’t mean that we can’t ever understand, only that in order to do so we need to learn to use our minds differently, to learn to live in a meditative state of mind. Anyone who experiences a sufficiently quiet mind will understand that the path to truth is the path of the heart and intuition, the realm of insight and positive feeling states.

I want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting that we should in any way devalue the sciences or our experiences of what we call objective reality and wander off to a cave somewhere. Maybe the best way for me to describe what I'm trying to is to suggest that we try to recognize that what we're using to do the evaluating with as simply a piece of what we're evaluating. For me, it's about trying to find a balance between inner awareness and outer attention, but I'm not sure that makes any sense to anyone either.

[Teri]

Thank you ZC and MH. I'll try the books recommended because I want to discover more about why the objective state is so persistent and where it comes from.

[Zetetic_chick]

See this Julio Siqueira's critical review about the book "Irreducible Mind":

http://www.criticandokardec.com.br/amazon_reviews.htm#kelly

I don't agree with all of the Siqueira's points, but some of his thoughts are interesting.

[william]

“For me, it's about trying to find a balance between inner awareness and outer attention, but I'm not sure that makes any sense to anyone either.”

From my point of view this explains the phenomenal world. I think it goes deeper than balance but I have no way of defining what goes beyond balance. As an entity whether a physical entity or an astral entity I think balance is the key but as we move more to a unity or cosmic consciousness balance becomes secondary to purer and more refined awareness.

The higher the dimension we reside in the more awareness of reality.
Have no idea if that made any sense.

“and wander off to a cave somewhere.”

I wonder if that is not a path for some souls but not all souls.

“we can't think our way to understanding the universal consciousness”

Maybe we can gain some knowledge of this universal consciousness through intellectual pursuits but understanding comes through realizations and as yet we don’t appear to know what effort or efforts can give us these realizations.

It appears that many religions believe it is meditation but I have seen people meditate their entire lives and don’t appear to be as far along on the path of compassion and a unity consciousness than those that don’t meditate.

[sonic]

Micheal H,
Stapp's main point is that there is nothing in physics that tells us that there is no spirit- (a non-physical influence). This is different from what most people think science has demonstrtated (the physical closure of the physical)
For example- Dennett wrote a well read book "Consciousness Explained" with a section titled 'Why Dualism is Forlorn'. This book was read by many, reviewed by the NY Times... "One of the Ten Best Books of the Year" NY Times.
But if you read Dennett you will see his problem is that he doesn't understand physics! Dualism is forlorn because of ignorance of what physics has actually found.
Stapp has been trying to educate about this change in science.

Perhaps we can say "the unobservable universe" is a philosophical construct that makes no sense.
Perhaps we can take that one step further...

[sonic]

Teri-
excuse the tardiness. 'Zetetic chick' has this stuff right.

[Steve Wood]

Regarding Death bed visions and Art's interest in such, Dr Peter Fenwick's new book, The Art Of Dying is excellent and covers the subject comprehensively. Regards, Steve Wood