Continuing with my Reader's Digest look at James E. Beichler's To Die For, which presents his single (operational) field theory, or SOFT ...
Having argued that our universe is five-dimensional and that mind and consciousness (or, as he likes to put it, MIND and CONSCIOUSNESS) exist in the fifth dimension, Beichler looks at what would happen after death in such a scenario. Essentially, the four-dimensional aspects of a sentient being would fall apart, but the fifth-dimensional aspects (mind and consciousness), being separate or at least separable from the material world, would persist.
Some excerpts:
The LIFE complexity or field is irreparably damaged when a living being dies. In the terms of SOFT, the field density pattern of LIFE in the fifth dimension loses coherence, which means that the field structure collapses ...
MIND cannot just dissipate away because it is organized by CONSCIOUSNESS, while CONSCIOUSNESS lends to MIND the coherence that it originally received through LIFE and the chemical reactions in the material body. CONSCIOUSNESS automatically takes over and supplies coherence to the MIND when the material chemical coherence, otherwise supplied by the body before death, ceases. Quite literally, MIND and CONSCIOUSNESS reinforce each other and thereby maintain an internal pattern of stability within the five-dimensional single field ... MIND and CONSCIOUSNESS were only connected to the four-dimensional material world by LIFE, so they need not remain connected to the four-dimensional material world after death ...
After death, the mind is cut off from the input of the five physical senses. This sudden cut-off can lead to disorientation. In some cases, the deceased person (or a person having a near-death experience) will find himself in a black void, which he may find terrifying. Some negative or "hellish" NDEs are of this type. The void, according to Beichler, is a reflection of the fact that the mind has not yet come to terms with its new condition. It is still looking for input through the familiar sensory channels, which no longer operate.
Normally, the mind does make the necessary adjustments. As Beichler explains:
The MIND still expects mental input and will accept input from any source available ... The MIND searches for new sources of memory and these can only come from the CONSCIOUSNESS after death via its five-dimensional conductivity in the single field ...
The mind's success in obtaining new inputs depends on its level of development.
The greater the complexity of CONSCIOUSNESS is, the greater the sensitivity of CONSCIOUSNESS to detecting the whims and fancy of the rest of the universe. This level of complexity first developed during the life of the living person, so how a person lived his or her LIFE, the quality of his or her LIFE, determines the state of being of what survives at death ...
If the person had achieved a higher level of CONSCIOUSNESS, such as enlightenment, then the MIND would already have memories of a five-dimensional experience and would then merge with less difficulty into its new state of being ... However, if the MIND had no memories or even the slightest idea of its five-dimensional existence during life, such that the person had only attained the lowest minimal level of CONSCIOUSNESS before death, the surviving MIND might not accept its new reality and continue expecting input from the Brain and the four-dimensional world. Under these circumstances, the MIND might be 'stuck' in its four-dimensional reality even though is materially cut-off from that reality and not realize that the body is dead. Or the MIND might not accept the death of its host body and experience a total blackness or 'nothingness'. At a slightly higher level of CONSCIOUSNESS, the MIND, not yet realizing its new state of reality, could look to its own internal memories and go through a past-life review, like a body cannibalizing its body fat when no food or nourishment is available. In some cases, the MIND could get stuck in its own memories thinking that they are material reality and suffer through having to endlessly repeat all of its past memories ...
Assuming that the mind does grasp its new context and begins to operate accordingly, it will start to function efficiently in fifth-dimensional space.
The MIND would begin to accept input from the CONSCIOUSNESS and form new memories, a reversal of its learning methods while living. The sixth sense would become permanently active as the primary and only real source of input for the MIND. The MIND would have a sense of entering the 'light', which is just a four-dimensional interpretation of realizing or becoming aware of contact in and with the single field, which is completely filled with electromagnetic waves of every imaginable frequency and wavelength ... The MIND would interpret its conscious contact with all the different frequencies of electromagnetic waves, both visible and invisible when the body lived, as a brilliant 'white' light, beyond anything seen or known during LIFE ...
Many NDErs experience a lifetime of memories in just a few moments while dead. This fact implies that they are not within the normal space-time continuum and are not experiencing time as it flows within that continuum ... With a momentary death, the lack of sensory input from our normal world of four-dimensional sources induces a never before experienced state of quiet and peace in which MIND and CONSCIOUSNESS can function as a single structural unit independent of life and body ...
Of course, since the person in question is not the first person ever to die, there are others who have already been through all this. These others are at home in fifth-dimensional space and can serve as guides to the new arrival.
It would be logical to assume that loved ones who have already died would have undergone a similar process of realizing their own connectivity of thought and CONSCIOUSNESS with the fifth dimension and their own MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS structures have survived within the single field, so they would appear to come out of the light when contact is made by the newly 'arrived' MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS complex. The surviving MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS complex of the NDEr would literally pick out memories within its own MIND pattern with which it was already familiar, such as family members, loved ones or friends and this would in a sense 'call up' the external MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS complexes of those loved ones ...
Near-death experiencers often find themselves profoundly changed by what they've gone through. Beichler argues that the change comes about because of exposure to (or entry into) "the light," which is the mind's way of conceptualizing its experience of five-dimensional reality, in which everyone and everything is connected.
After the NDE the experiencer would judge and make choices against the more complete and truer view of the whole five dimensions of the universe ...
In a sense our individual lives and LIFEs would be shared with others since we are all part of the same single field. Doing any type of harm to another living being would alter that being's internal pattern of MIND that would be communicated back to the individual causing harm by the five-dimensional connection between the two ...
Within this five-dimensional model, love can now be defined as an intimate and purposeful or directed five-dimensional connection with another being or beings ...
The pattern imprinted into the MIND and CONSCIOUSNESS of each person forms the special intimate pattern matching connection that is love ...
Teaching and practicing love and compassion as a precept during LIFE would help a person recognize and accept the 'white light' upon death ...
'Hate' must consist of an internal scrambling of one's own MIND and CONSCIOUSNESS patterns so they would no longer 'align' with the patterns of the person or persons toward whom the 'hate' is directed ...
The person could theoretically create his or her own hell based on their hatred, their scrambled interpretation of the universe and their discontinuity with the single field ...
As evidence, Beichler points to the statements of some NDErs whose experiences appear to have been particularly profound.*
Cherie Sutherland reports Michael's interpretation of his NDE during a surfing accident that alludes directly to this aspect of the phenomenon. "I was looking around and I sort of got this feeling, it's hard to explain, as though I was part of it all. I felt as though I was part of everything around me. I just felt as if everything was in me and I was in everything." Without knowing it, Michael was describing the mutual connectivity that he shares with other material objects in the universe as sympathetic patterns in the single field ...
Olaf described the 'location' of his NDE as a "universe without boundaries," a phrase which certainly would not seem to fit our four-dimensional reality ...
[quoting an NDEr:] "Now, there is a real problem for me as I'm trying to tell you this, because all the words I know are three-dimensional. As I was going through this, I kept thinking, well, when I was taking geometry, they always told me there were only three dimensions, and I always accepted that. But they were wrong. There are more. And of course, our world -- the one we're living in now -- is three-dimensional, but the next one definitely isn't. And that's why it's so hard to tell you this. I have to describe it to you in words that are three-dimensional. That's as close as I can get to it, but it's not really adequate. I can't really give you a complete picture."
The reference to "a universe without boundaries" reminds me of the well-known channeled book, The Unobstructed Universe, by Stewart Edward White. This is one of the more technical books purporting to explain the afterlife, and if I recall correctly, some of its content matches up pretty well with SOFT.
In addition to NDEs, there is a similar phenomenon which Beichler dubs Near-Death-Like Experiences, or NDLEs. In these cases, a person undergoes some of the stages of an NDE without actually being near death. Certain meditative techniques can bring about an NDLE. So can a frightening situation in which the person fully expects to die, even though death is not actually imminent. (A famous example is a collection of NDLEs reported by mountain climbers who fell a great distance but were saved from death by handing in soft snow.)
When the MIND is completely convinced that death is imminent, it can elicit a defense mechanism by which it spontaneously enters a low level NDLE. The MIND starts to shut LIFE down in preparation for what it believes will be an inevitable death ... This chemical process can spontaneously initiate a chemical cascade in the Brain resulting in an abridged form of an NDE ...
Beichler says that paranormal phenomena in general can be easily viewed in terms of SOFT, whether the percipient has an NDE, an NDLE, or some other experience. For instance, take remote viewing. The person sits in a room and describes a location that may be hundreds of miles away. How is this possible? If the mind is limited to four-dimensional spacetime, it seems inexplicable. Burt if the mind occupies a fifth dimension, then it need not be bound by the restrictions of our 4D world. It can range across space (and time). An analogy would be to a Flatland universe in which the inhabitants were aware of only two dimensions of space. If one of the Flatlanders could rise up out of the sheet of paper he lived on and view it from above, he would be able to see all the way to the edges of the paper. He would appear to have a godlike perspective, unbound by physical constraints. But actually he would still be operating in the physical world, only it would be a world of three dimensions (in space), rather than two.
The remote viewer, according to SOFT, is similar to the elevated Flatlander. He is able to see our 4D world from a 5D perspective. The results may seem miraculous or at least anomalous, but they are anomalous only within a 4D context.
NDErs (and mediums, and psychics) often talk about "vibrations" (a term that comes up frequently in The Unobstructed Universe, by the way). Beichler prefers to think in terms of resonances.
The SOFT view of death is further supported by reports that experiencers sense or feel love material effects of the NDE at the cellular level, many times as vibrations. These are not true vibrations in the material sense, but are instead identified as physical field resonances as described by SOFT ...
When energy changes occur in the cell they affect the five-dimensional extensions of the individual elementary particles that constitute the cell by increasing or decreasing their extension into the fifth dimension. These changes entangle within the five-dimensional single field to determine the overall field density variation pattern which is LIFE itself. However, these changes are actually variations in the field density of the single field as a complete continuous whole. As such, these cells act like antennas to pick up changes of field density from other sources in the five-dimensional single field environment of LIFE, MIND and CONSCIOUSNESS ...
What, then, can we expect our existence to be like in this fifth dimension, and what is the point of it all?
The surviving MIND/CONSCIOUSNESS complex is essentially freed from its material bondage in the four-dimensional 'sheet' that is our material world and continues to exist as a free entity in the five-dimensional single field ...
The single field fills the entire universe, so the 'spirit' exists in the same complete universe that the living being occupied, only it is a far more complete universe that the 'spirit' occupies ...
Just as increasing knowledge of the world and a new memories openly resulted in the evolution of CONSCIOUSNESS out of the raw 'stuff' of the MIND, we can assume that increasing knowledge and understanding of the greater five-dimensional universe should precipitate a new and even higher-level complexity corresponding to a sixth dimension of space ...
The very fact to that individual CONSCIOUSNESS is so heavily entwined with the rest of the universe, should alone imply some type of conscious choice in the evolution of LIFE, MIND and CONSCIOUSNESS as well is what lies beyond ...
The existence of a single conscious being in the universe must render the universe itself conscious ...
The goal or purpose of self-realization, the primary property of consciousness, is both imminent in every point of space-time and transcendent beyond the mere collection of all the points in space-time, from the perspective of the universe itself ...
If there is good and evil in the universe, then what is good is that which helps the universe gain true knowledge of itself and that which is evil would be anything that disrupts the search for true knowledge as well as the development, support and dissemination of harmful false knowledge.
Anything that blocks other human beings and sentient beings in their own personal quest for true knowledge is wrong if not outright evil ...
Death also opens the door to the next step in the development of CONSCIOUSNESS. The next step in evolution could not be as effective as possible while the MIND and CONSCIOUSNESS are hampered by their connection to the material world by LIFE ...
If this is true, should we be in a hurry to die? Beichler cautions against this conclusion.
Every person should live as long as possible so that they can learn as much as possible to develop their CONSCIOUSNESS and thereby prepare for what happens to them upon death. Since the 'purpose' of every living being is to seek, learn and disseminate true knowledge, ending the LIFE of oneself or another sentient being amounts to artificially and wrongfully ending a line of unique knowledge and experience in the universe. Taking another person's or sentient being's LIFE is a crime against the universe ...
He also deals with the issue of grieving. He points out that while the deceased person remains in existence, his absence is felt by those left behind, who no longer have contact with him through the physical senses. Often, a grieving person will receive psychic impressions from the deceased (after-death communications), but these may actually exacerbate the person's confusion and pain.
The living person's MIND is still receiving subtle" from the surviving CONSCIOUSNESS of the dead partner via the sixth sense, but receives no corresponding chemical signals via the normal five senses. This mismatching of input signals to the MIND, coming from two different 'directions', causes a 'dissonance' in the MIND from the eyes and inner ear.
Rather than obsessing on the deceased, it is best to think of him as having gone away on a journey. He will not return, but we will join him when the time is right. In the meantime, our mission of raising our own consciousness here in four-dimensional spacetime continues, with the incentive that a higher level of consciousness (which means not only knowledge but also compassion, love, and a sense of oneness with all things) will ease our transition to the next world.
The above is a painfully brief summary of a far more detailed presentation. Is Beichler on to something? I don't know. I can't assess his theory on a technical level. But SOFT does offer certain advantages over competing approaches. For one thing, it resolves the old question of mind-body dualism by positing that the mind is a fifth-dimensional extension of the material body. It also solves the related problem of interactionism, inasmuch as the mind is no less physical than the body.
Moreover, it addresses the issue of methodological naturalism, which is so important to science. Methodological naturalism holds that science should always seek a non-supernatural explanation for any phenomenon. The rationale behind this method is that if we grant that a supernatural explanation is adequate, then we will probably stop looking for a natural explanation. For instance, if we decide that smallpox is a curse sent by the devil, then we may feel we don't need to look any further - and we will never learn that smallpox is caused by a virus, which can be combated with antiviral medicines. Or if we believe thunder is the roaring of the gods, we may not look deeper into the phenomenon and discover that its origin is electrical discharges in the atmosphere.
Methodological naturalism has been so crucial to science that scientists are unlikely to give it up. This is one reason - maybe the chief reason - why mainstream science chooses to ignore or ridicule paranormal phenomena. The stigma of superstition is simply too great to overcome. But if some natural, physical explanation were provided for such phenomena, some of the resistance offered by the scientific community might melt away. Beichler's SOFT may offer such an approach.
----
*Art, these are for you!
Nice theory. How do we test it?
Posted by: MarkL | March 28, 2009 at 01:19 PM
By dying.
Like all after life theories :-)
Posted by: someone | March 28, 2009 at 02:10 PM
How do we test it?
I'll repost some remarks I left on the comment thread of part one:
I admit that Beichler does not offer proof of his position. This doesn't surprise me, since I doubt there is any way to empirically test theories about the nature of ultimate reality. How would one go about testing Bohm's theory of the holomovement, for instance?
Theories like this are usually evaluated on the basis of four criteria:
1. The theory must fit the equations.
2. The theory must cover all the known evidence.
3. The theory must not lead to internal contradictions, logical paradoxes, or mathematical dead-ends.
4. The theory must have a certain elegance.
The last criterion is somewhat subjective, but it does seem to be an important element in analyzing and assessing theories of this kind.
I'm in no position to evaluate items 1-3. As for item 4, I think Beichler's approach does have a certain elegance, since it could resolve the mind-body dichotomy and the associated problem of interactionism. Any theory that is monistic, as SOFT is, is probably to be preferred over dualistic theories, all other things being equal. (This would be an application of Occam's razor.)
Posted by: Michael Prescott | March 28, 2009 at 03:20 PM
"Cherie Sutherland reports Michael's interpretation of his NDE during a surfing accident that alludes directly to this aspect of the phenomenon. "I was looking around and I sort of got this feeling, it's hard to explain, as though I was part of it all. I felt as though I was part of everything around me. I just felt as if everything was in me and I was in everything." Without knowing it, Michael was describing the mutual connectivity that he shares with other material objects in the universe as sympathetic patterns in the single field"
--------------------------------------------
Thanks Michael! Without knowing it Michael was describing the holographic nature of the Universe. By the way I had all ready read Cherie Sutherland's book several years ago and noted the connection between Michael's NDE and Talbots & Bohm's holographic universe. I've read so many NDE's that seem to have a very "holographic" flavor. I think the implications are incredibly profound. For one thing it means that this so called physical universe is somehow a projection from someplace else, something that some physicists are agree with. The recent article on the holographic universe was talking about the blurriness of a hologram, which I find very interesting because some NDE'ers also say that the other side seemed "more real" than this physical reality. I had wondered how that was possible or what it meant, but now that I've read that article it makes perfect sense. They say that the other side will seem even more real to us than this side and I know why. This side is the holographic projection and the projection always has a certain inherent level of fuzziness whereas the original holographic piece of film doesn't.
Posted by: Art | March 28, 2009 at 08:32 PM
I found the article and quote that talks about the blurriness of holographic universe. This is why near death experiencers say that the other side seemed even "more real" than this physical universe; or that they experienced "more consciousness than normal."
"Or, to put it another way, a holographic universe is blurry," says Hogan.
from: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?page=2
Posted by: Art | March 28, 2009 at 08:38 PM
I wonder if this theory could help explain one of the most interesting anomalies around: the way some organ recipients take on traits of the organ donor. Does anyone care to speculate about this?
Posted by: Roger Knights | March 28, 2009 at 09:16 PM
the way some organ recipients take on traits of the organ donor.
I can't locate the reference right now, but Beichler does mention this in his book. As I recall, he suggests that mind is an extension of the entire physical body (not just the brain and nervous system), and so there is some connection between mind and every organ, or even every cell. Thus a person who receives a transplanted organ might acquire a connection to the donor's mind in fifth-dimensional space.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | March 28, 2009 at 10:05 PM
the way some organ recipients take on traits of the organ donor.
It's known as cellular memory. Late physician Dr.Paul Pearsall researched and published a book on it entitled "The Heart's Code", documenting cases of heart transplants where the organ receipent took some traits of the organ donor .
See this paper (co-authored with Gary Schwartz and Linda G. Russek) on cellular memory and organ transplants by Dr.Pearsall:
http://www.paulpearsall.com/info/press/3.html
Actress Jessica Alba starred an interesting terror movied about it called "The Eye". See the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjxa9gSjpJA
Does anyone care to speculate about this?
This is an interesting question. It may support the view that the body is part of consciousness, not a material substance absolutely independent of it. In that view, the body is only an physical expression of an expanded and all-comprehensive consciousness (obviously, the latter wouldn't be limited to the physical body alone, as thought by materialists), and that consciousness can adopt different manifestations (e.g. in spiritual realms, like etheric bodies, etc.).
Except Art's holographic philosophy, or Beichler's speculations (and some other exceptional doctrines), I find hard to explain how you can transfer aspects of consciousness through an organ transplant (i.e. through bodily-physical means alone).
It could present some problems to substance dualism (the latter, a position that I fully endorse), at least in its classic Cartesian formulation, and this is why we shouldn't be never dogmatic about our most cherished philosophical beliefs.
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | March 28, 2009 at 11:27 PM
"Thus a person who receives a transplanted organ might acquire a connection to the donor's mind in fifth-dimensional space."
Might pay to leave instructions to donate your organs after your death ;-)
Posted by: Hope Rivers | March 29, 2009 at 12:05 AM
It could present some problems to substance dualism (the latter, a position that I fully endorse)
Beichler's view does not necessarily rule out substance dualism. From a four-dimensional perspective, substance dualism would be true, since the mind would exist in a realm outside of our 4D world and thus would be something fundamentally different from the world of our senses. From a higher 5D perspective, however, the mind would be seen as an extension of the material body in the fifth dimension. So dualism would be a valid way of looking at things from a 4D point of view, but invalid from a 5D vantage point.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | March 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM
This 5th dimension seems to be similar to Sheldrake's morphic field, right? hat do people here think?
Posted by: Roger Knights | March 29, 2009 at 05:51 AM
I think I will make sure I don't leave any of my 5th dimension to anyone in my Will.
I don't purport to have any advanced knowledge of science however I have to say Beichler's ideas, at least as explained by MP do resonate with me. I don't see the problem with him presenting his ideas for consideration in the way he has. He may well turn out to be wrong in due course however to me, perhaps in my ignorance, at least it is an attempt to describe our experience in totality without dismissing the bits that don't fit our ideas of a completely material universe. It is a basis of discussion I guess. By challenging it we may either prove it is fatally flawed or extend and refine it. I had to read some of the excerpts a few times to get them in my head but I do think it is helpful and look forward to reading the book.
I am not sure that the fact is includes elements of other theories is a bad thing is it?
To Roger: I think your comment about Sheldrake's morphic field is an interesting observation - it seems to me at first face that it does fit with Beichler.
Posted by: Paul Welsh | March 29, 2009 at 06:05 AM
So dualism would be a valid way of looking at things from a 4D point of view, but invalid from a 5D vantage point.
It's very interesting, Beichler's thesis seems reasonable, at least theoretically.
the mind would be seen as an extension of the material body in the fifth dimension
I can't understand that. If the mind is an "extension" of the material body, does it entails that the material body is, from a 5D vantage point, primary in regard with the mind?
Another question is if Beichler's theory is compatible with reincarnation.
I quote one of Beichler's points (from your previous post): "the development of the Brain coincides with the emergence of an even more refined complex pattern of field density variations. This new pattern is imprinted on the LIFE pattern. Since it is a refined field imprint pattern on the LIFE pattern, the emergence of this new five-dimensional extension of the Brain could be described as a secondary complexity yielding a secondary attractor. This new secondary complexity is MIND ..."
In Beichler's view, the mind is a secondary complexity, not a primary substance/element. The mind development coincides with brain development (and it implies that mind cannot exist without a brain development to coincide with)
In fact, mind is a emergent (as a five-dimensional extension) on the brain functioning. It seems imply that mind need of a brain to its existence (even thought the mind, after it have been developed, can trascend in other dimension without the brain...).
If the above is true, then a mind cannot exist if, previously or simultaneously, a brain hasn't been formed. It seems incompatible both with substance dualism and trascendental (spiritualistic) monism. Also I find it hard to armonize it with reincarnation.
For to Beichler, consciousness seems to be only (or essentially) an organizing pattern (a la Sheldrake's morphic fields), but mind is who we are (i.e. our personality, identity, thinking, etc.). But if mind is a secondary emergent, and trascendent, phenomenon of the brain, then our spiritual identity is only an accident that coincides with the development of complex matter (the brain), not a fundamental or essential thing in the universe.
Maybe I get some of Beichler's ideas wrong...
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | March 29, 2009 at 09:24 AM
Maybe I get some of Beichler's ideas wrong...
No, I think you've got them right. I was probably wrong to say that SOFT is compatible with substance dualism. It is compatible with some form of dualism, but maybe not substance dualism, as you've described it.
Beichler definitely does believe that mind is an emergent property of matter, but that it can acquire an independent existence once it has been established as a fifth-dimensional structure.
He does not address the issue of God and seems to feel he has no need of that hypothesis (as Laplace said). Personally, I think the various "cosmic coincidences" that brought about our universe do argue strongly for some kind of organizing intelligence, but that's a separate issue from what Beichler is discussing in his book.
I don't think SOFT is ultimately any threat to a more religious or "spiritual" view of the cosmos, since even if we think the universe is an idea in the mind of God, we still need to understand how that idea works. And if God could think up a 4D universe, He could presumably think up a 5D or 6D (or 50D) universe just as easily.
Regarding reincarnation, Beichler talks about Ian Stevenson's research and takes it seriously. I would assume that reincarnation in his system would involve the surviving mind/consciousness complex attaching itself to a newly developing organism (embryo or fetus). I suppose an alternate explanation would be that the child's mind, as it develops, finds itself in resonance with another mind/consciousness complex in the fifth dimension - sort of like the resonance of two tuning forks.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | March 29, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Thank you for writing these reviews, Michael. Very interesting.
If mind is an emergent property of matter, presumably Mr Beichler rules out any direction to the process of evolution by Mind? Are Mind and the 5th dimension seen in his philosophy as chance emergences?
Posted by: Ben | March 29, 2009 at 11:10 AM
I'd dare to call Beichler's theory a "trascedental emergent materialism", regarding the mind-body problem, for two reasons:
-Mind is an emergent property of matter (this is the materialistic component, i.e. matter produces mind)
-His theory recognizes that some of these emergent properties are trascendental (i.e. they trascend a material brain). This is the trascendental component.
But in a wider metaphysical perspective (not in regard to the mind-body problem), Beichler's theory seems to be dualistic, in the sense it recognizes at least two substances: consciousness and matter; being consciousness the organizing pattern of matter (but not produced by matter).
This point is similar to Thomas Aquinas' dualism.
Also, it remembers me of Gary Schwartz's hypothesis about organizing systems, and their emergent properties, as an explanation to survival of consciousness.
On reincarnation, it seems that Beichler's view can explain Stevenson's scientific results, but not in terms in the reincarnation hypothesis.
Because as Michael said: "...the child's mind, as it develops, finds itself in resonance with another mind/consciousness complex in the fifth dimension - sort of like the resonance of two tuning forks", but in that case, we wouldn't be talking about reincarnation (i.e. the same soul incarning in a new body), but about a phenomenon of resonance or compatibility between a child's emergent mind, and another already existing mind in another dimesion.
But they would be essentially two minds (which resonates to each other), not the same mind/soul...
It won't be properly reincarnation as usually understood.
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | March 29, 2009 at 11:42 AM
On reincarnation, it seems that Beichler's view can explain Stevenson's scientific results, but not in terms in the reincarnation hypothesis.
I don't know Beichler's view on reincarnation, other than that he takes Stevenson's work seriously. If he believes that the mind/consciousness complex attaches itself to a newly developing material body (a fetus, say), then his view would be consistent with reincarnation as normally understood.
Are Mind and the 5th dimension seen in his philosophy as chance emergences?
The fifth dimension is not really an emergence, since in SOFT it has existed for as long as the rest of the physical universe. As for mind, I think Beichler would say that it is not a chance emergence, but rather an inevitable emergence once a certain level of material complexity is reached.
He doesn't seem to think there is any overarching Mind that directs the whole process. This is where I would probably disagree with him, since I find the "argument from design," in its modern form, pretty compelling. That is, I think the order, complexity, stability, and habitability of the universe, as well as the origin of life, all suggest a guiding Intelligence. (Beichler seems to think that the emergence of life is a fairly matter-of-course development, given the proper conditions. I doubt this is true, because of the incredible complexity of even the "simplest" cell.)
Posted by: Michael Prescott | March 29, 2009 at 01:27 PM
He doesn't seem to think there is any overarching Mind that directs the whole process. This is where I would probably disagree with him, since I find the "argument from design," in its modern form, pretty compelling.
Nicely put, Michael. I was watching the program on Yellowstone tonight, in which beavers bite through cottonwood trees for their dams, but only until they are unstable enough to let the wind take over; so avoiding injury.
And the nuthatch removes 150 nuts at a time and deposits them elsewhere, even covering them with a stone. And it's memory is not perfect: it forgets 300 of every 1000 it buries, thus enabling new trees to grow to feed it in the future.
Mind is so obviously powerful in nature.
Posted by: Ben | March 29, 2009 at 01:41 PM
MarkL: "Nice theory. How do we test it?"
First, you must define "test."
In my own explorations, knowing works, even though there is no reason for anyone else to accept my personal knowing.
An example would be a clear instance of pre-cognition.
I've recorded a number of these over the years, and I am certainly not unique.
I am unable to create these at will, however. All I can suggest to those who would create a similar experience -- and a similar knowing -- is to be open to the possibility and to practice any methods that increase the odds of occurrence, such as basic mind quieting techniques.
"Testing" as in, say, laboratory testing or even something as prosaic as testing whether a repair to a device has succeeded or not, really isn't attainable here, and the same applies to Beichler's theories.
I find points of correspondence in these to various other theories, with differences, too.
I draw the conclusion from my above knowing experiences that some region of my own self or mind transcends time.
This is consistent with tales from many others, including Arnold J. Toynbee, the historian and grandfather of Polly Toynbee, the Guardian columnist. (Typepad apparently doesn't like links. If you go to the site associated with my name, however, look for a page titled Arnold J. Toynbee -- Time Traveler -- there's a clickable link on the left of the opening page.)
So it's plausible that a region of self extends into a "fifth dimension."
There are many other ways to describe this, however; one would be to state that time is an element of what we call physical existence but doesn't apply to other realms.
I can't agree with Beichler's ideas regarding the genesis of what he calls "MIND."
This conflicts with my personal knowing, and I naturally lean towards those theories or explanations that are consistent with my knowing. (This is not to say that my knowing doesn't change; when it does, I seek new or better explanations.)
Per these, we "are as dead now" as we'll ever be. In other words, our brains, bodies, and personalities are offshoots of what could be called a pre-existing region of self. ("Pre-existing" in that it exists outside of time.)
There are ways to "test" this last, in a knowing sense. What's required is accessing the relevant region of self. (Some might call this region "soul" but with the endless associations that cling to that word, it might be better to call it something else.)
Using modern terminology, we can replace supernatural with psychological and say that "regions of self" exist within the subconscious and unconscious.
The task, then, is to consciously access relevant areas of the two and successfully remember them (as difficult to accomplish, in some ways, as recalling in detail a vivid dream, but endless books describing effective dream recall methods do exist).
All of these efforts are akin to Beichler's advice: "Every person should live as long as possible so that they can learn as much as possible to develop their CONSCIOUSNESS and thereby prepare for what happens to them upon death."
The appropriate question here is "How do we develop our CONSCIOUSNESS?
Unless we find ways or methods to do this and practice them, such theories amount to useless speculation, no matter how interesting or entertaining they might be.
Fortunately, there is no shortage of methods.
Bill I.
Posted by: Bill I. | March 29, 2009 at 07:15 PM
Wow, all this talk about MIND and CONSCIOUSNESS and UNITY CONSCIOUSNESS...seems like people have been elevated from the materialist's status of "shit luck matter" that happened to survive...to living life after life as a "mind" or a "consciousness". Quite an elevation. Could anyone explain to me how living as a "mind" could be any kind of an existence at all? Exactly what does a "mind" do? Think about things?
While this person might take Ian Stevenson's research seriously, I might add that there are other people who take his research seriously as well...but arrive at completely different conclusions than it is reincarnation. It amazes me how people will just assume reincarnation and then look for anything to convince themselves of it.
An aside note that I wonder if any of you, being so intellectual as you are, have ever considered this: I know people who have been told that family members they love who have passed on are/could be in hell forever being tortured. I saw what it did to those people, it destroyed them.
I also know people who have lost loved ones and have been told that those people they love are now reincarnated and so they are separated from them forever. And I saw what this did to those people as well.
I've lived my life planning ventures, hoping for the best, but always planning for the worst...just in case. I find that one's precious belief ought to stand the acid test...and the acid test is when you are facing someone who is suffering in grief when someone they love dies...does your "hell" or "reincarnation" belief pass this test? I find it hard to believe your "truth" is true when it destroys people. For hell, people blame it on God's justice, and for reincarnation they blame it on the "laws" of the universe. Think about this carefully.
Also, here is a story from Dr. Melvin Morse, is this deceased boy, whom the nurse saw following Dr. Morse and trying to get his attention, a "mind" or a "consciousness"? Which one was he?? Why hasn't he dissolved into consciousness/oneness or reincarnated? Was she seeing only a "mind"? Ridiculous.
I am a Pediatrician who has studied near death experiences for 15 years. A woman once came to visit me from New York. I was amazed to see her as I live in Seattle. I asked her how I could help her, and she replied "it has been 2041 days since my son died. I have not slept more than four hours a night since then". I felt a horrible pit of despair in my stomach. I could only think about my own five healthy children, and I felt like a fraud even pretending that I have anything to offer this woman.
I asked her to tell me more about her son and she gave me his picture. Suddenly, I was called to the hospital, which is next door to my office to resuscitate a critically ill newborn. I excused myself, and ran to the hospital. When I got there, the baby was already better and I actually had little to do. While charting my notes, one of the nurses came up to me and asked, "Who was that who came over with you? Is he a student?" I asked "what are you talking about". I was trying to find a pen, and took the picture out of my pocket. The nurse said: "that's him. He kept trying to get your attention".
I returned to my office and asked the mother if she had ever been contacted by her son. She said, "Oh yes, after he died, for several nights he would stand at the foot of my bed and tell me he was all right, and that I should stop crying. It seemed real, but it couldn't have been real. I felt too embarrassed to share with this mother what happened to me at the hospital. Instead, I told her that before she went to bed, she should do some simple relaxation techniques and turn off her internal narrator. She should then ask her son for help in healing her grief. The mother wrote to me later, and told me that that night was the first night she had slept well since her son died. After years of going to various grief workshops and psychics and mediums, she learned that the seeds of her own healing right at the foot of her bed.
This Mom had an after-death communication from her son. It is one of the most common spiritual experiences that we have. Research shows that 50-75% of grieving spouses or parents have some sort of visitation. Unfortunately, like the Mother who visited me, most people trivialize or dismiss the experiences as grief induced hallucinations, and cut themselves off from their potential to heal.
Posted by: Al | March 29, 2009 at 07:55 PM
Did the child in this story see a "mind"?? A consciousness? Why hadn't grandfather merged with the ground of all being or gone to the realm of "mind" or reincarnated?
My father enjoyed being a Christian man and much of the last few years of his life were consumed by various church activities, bible studies and other faith based activities. He particularly enjoyed the woods and drove to a spot each morning before his wife awoke, walked a little way into the woods and would sit in what he called his "prayer spot" to relax, pray. Only my grandmother (his mother), his wife and I knew about this and only I knew where it was located. He had showed me where it was just in case something would ever happen or he would be missing (he had a bad heart) but made me vow to never tell anyone where it was.
I received a call from the hospital on Feb. 11th, two days before my twins 4th birthday (my father was also a twin) telling me that my father had died and to come to the hospital right away. Upon arriving I was informed that my father was found dead in his car, seated upright in the drivers seat with his foot still on the brake. The car was still in drive and on, however; it had run out of gas and was no longer running.
The police reported no signs of foul play and with his previous health issues his death was ruled as the result of a massive heart attack.
The next day, my son and I were sitting out on that same porch and he said that "pappy came to see me last night" I was a little caught off guard by his statement. He then went on to tell me that "pappy got killed by a bear" I said "that must have been a really bad dream buddy" He said, "no, mommy! Pappy got chased by a bear and it made his heart stop "beeping" ". He then told me that my father told him that he was at his prayer spot praying and a big bear came. He said that my father told him that he tried not to run but he was close enough to his car so he ran and the bear was chasing him. He said that my father told him that he was laughing and drove away but then he felt his heart stop "beeping" so he stopped his car. My son said that my father told him to make sure he tells mommy what happened because it was really important for me to know.
My son knew nothing about my father's prayer spot or that he even called it that and even if he had overheard the term he would have no way of knowing that it was in the woods. He also...did not know any details of my fathers death. We didn't discuss them around the kids and my children did not attend his viewing or funeral because they were ill themselves at the time. There was no way for him to know that my father died or was found dead in a car either or the fact that the location where he and his car were found was no more than a few blocks from the entrance to his prayer spot. Also, the fact that he mentioned that my Dad said "I tried not to run" when he was talking about the bear also stood out to me since my father was a big hunter, fisherman who spent a huge part of his life in the woods and always made a point of telling us if we encountered a bear NEVER RUN. Also, after my father had his first heart attack we had explained to the kids that it meant he had big trouble with his heart "beeping" and my Dad always referred to his heart beat as his heart "beep" after that so that the kids knew what he meant. Interestingly enough, my son has never claimed to see or speak to my father since.
Posted by: Al | March 29, 2009 at 08:13 PM
Al, I don't see a contradiction between the Melvin Morse incident and Beichler's ideas. When Beichler talks about a mind/consciousness structure surviving death, he doesn't mean (as I understand it) that we will have no body. He means that the after-death body will be a construct of the mind. It will seem at least as real to us as our body does in a dream (and probably much more real). And when other minds (whether attached to earthly bodies or not) encounter our mind, they will see the body that we ourselves experience.
Could anyone explain to me how living as a "mind" could be any kind of an existence at all?
If you're asleep and dreaming, you exist as a mind. You can do all kinds of things. You may find yourself running through a meadow, walking on a beach, playing with a favorite pet, having a romantic dinner with a loved one ...
The difference between a dream world and the afterlife appears to be that the afterlife is a shared dream, or a shared mental construct. This, of course, only makes it better, since you can share your experiences with others, ask them for help, become emotionally closer to them, etc.
You're not just drifting in a void - although some people may have that experience for a while, until they learn how to navigate their new environment.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | March 29, 2009 at 08:24 PM
"The difference between a dream world and the afterlife appears to be that the afterlife is a shared dream, or a shared mental construct."
A shared dream? So what about all of the vibrations and parallel worlds spiritualists speak of? They've all been wrong and life after life is a dream?
"If you're asleep and dreaming, you exist as a mind. You can do all kinds of things."
So if my wife has a dream where her family is cooking chicken because her deceased father is coming back home to live with them again, you're telling me this is "real"?
I notice no one has commented on my statement about applying your precious beliefs to real life situations in, you know, the world we KNOW exists, this one. In front of a person suffering in grief, test your hell or reincarnation belief in that real life situation and assess it's validity. Surely, a valid "truth" would have some place in a common sense situation would it not? But, don't blame God or the universe for the reaction you get to your "truth" or universal "law".
Posted by: Al | March 29, 2009 at 09:13 PM
Also, what about UFOs? What about the fact that Howard Storm was told there are numerous dimensions with other dimensions in those dimensions and that there is life all through them? Are the ETs all sharing a dream together?
Posted by: Al | March 29, 2009 at 09:16 PM
test your hell or reincarnation belief in that real life situation
I doubt there's any everlasting hell. There may be temporary hellish environments for people who have major sins to atone for. I would imagine that Adolf Hitler, for instance, is spending some time in a rather bad place. But this would not be a concern for the ordinary decent person.
As for reincarnation, some people actually like the idea. Thomas Edison wanted to be reincarnated so he could come up with more inventions. Other people may find reincarnation to be a romantic and appealing possibility. (I'm not too keen on it, personally.)
In any event, I don't think anyone here is insisting that we know the topography of the afterlife. We're exchanging highly speculative ideas based on the best available evidence (as we see it). If a particular idea doesn't ring true for you, just ignore it.
Even I don't agree with myself all the time!
Posted by: Michael Prescott | March 29, 2009 at 10:36 PM
“If he believes that the mind/consciousness complex attaches itself to a newly developing material body (a fetus, say”
This is what Newton claims the author of life between life’s. But if a soul attaches itself to a human fetus then would the human creature have a soul. I wrote Newton and everyone he trained for an answer and Newton did not respond to my letter. Only one of his hypnotherapist’s responded and she stated she did not even consider such a question. It appears that pet dogs have a soul why not a human creature. I.e. two souls in one body???
“That is, I think the order, complexity, stability, and habitability of the universe, as well as the origin of life, all suggest a guiding Intelligence.”
I agree the mere fact we have some level of intelligence suggests an intelligent universe. My point all along has been the only way this infinite intelligence can express itself in an infinite variety of expressions is to manifest and create entities with lesser intelligence. An evolutionary process of consciousness development appears to be how this manifestation and creation occurs.
“Mind is so obviously powerful in nature.”
Nature may very well be Mind in action and an incubator as an underlying reality that fosters soul creation and development of consciousness. Being human is just one phase of that development. I.e. self-identity.
“The appropriate question here is "How do we develop our CONSCIOUSNESS?”
That is a sticky question the how part. Too much effort could be ego bound and self confirmatory. I suspect the system that most call karma promotes soul development. We cannot; not express ourselves and due to karma as we express ourselves we learn, sometimes the hard way, ok most of the time the hard way. It is a closed system that appears open to us but we have to progress. Appearances tell us otherwise but appearances are deceiving.
“I notice no one has commented on my statement about applying your precious beliefs to real life situations in, you know, the world we KNOW exists, this one”
Many have shared their “precious beliefs” with their real life experiences on this blog. I personally have shared my own dream “visitation” and my wife’s story about what occurred in the hospital room during her brother’s passing.
Are you new to this blog? This particular post is a post about one person’s theory that from my point of view is more about making his physics work than about after life evidence.
“Are the ETs all sharing a dream together?”
From my point of view the word dream and the word illusion are very poor concepts to explain many if not all of these dimensions. My research indicates there are many dimensions how many I have no idea but “spirits” that come through mediums tell us that the dimension they are presently residing in are more real to them then when they were human in the physical world.
Posted by: william | March 29, 2009 at 11:17 PM
I might be misreading-
According to SOFT-
It seems we have consciousness interacting with material creating mind. So the human brain would be a needed component of the human mind. I guess a tiger brain would be needed to create a tiger mind.
Dualism or monoism- take your venn diagrams and draw a circle around the whole thing (all 4 or 5 or 6 dimensions)
There is your one that contains all.
Posted by: sonic | March 30, 2009 at 03:13 AM
Frequently survival believers refers to Quantum Mechanics for offering a scientific explanation to their beliefs. Words like entanglement etc. is easily abused to support all sorts of claims since so few have the necessary insight in QM to refute these theories. On a Steven Novella blog I recently read a response to why using QM to explain psi is scientifically unfounded:
...And then he goes into the typical quantum woo, completely misunderstanding quantum mechanics. There are two basic reasons that quantum weird effects do not apply to people (and for all those physics majors out there, forgive my oversimplification, but these are the key concepts as I understand them). The first is that as particles interact with other particles any quantum non-locality or entanglement is effectively lost. This is called decoherence. For that reason quantum effects just don’t apply to people. Or (as Michio Kaku said when I interviewed him on the SGU) it does, but you would have to wait longer than the age of the universe for any quantum effects to manifest. In fact I specifically asked Michio if quantum mechanics allows for any new age woo, and he said unequivocally no.
The second reason quantum effects do not apply to people is the de Broglie wavelength. Louis de Broglie won the Nobel prize in 1929 for his work in quantum mechanics deriving the formula for calculating the effective wavelength of an electron. His equation actually applies to any physical object, including a person. The de Broglie wavelength of anything is equal to Planck’s constant (6.626 x10^-34) divided by the object’s momentum. For electrons, this gives a sizable wavelength. The bigger an object the smaller the de Broglie wavelength, and for macroscopic objects it is insignificantly small. This determines in essence the degree of quantum uncertainty, which is so tiny we can ignore it for macroscopic objects.
Bottom line - quantum effects cannot be invoked to explain the magic of intention. Sorry, Pillay.
So in short QM abnomalies don't really apply to the macroscopic world. I don't think Steven really understands QM himself but the valid point here is that neither does many of the newage philosophers referencing to QM for a possible explanation for PSI.
Posted by: Steen Bundgaard | March 30, 2009 at 06:16 AM
But they would be essentially two minds (which resonates to each other), not the same mind/soul... It won't be properly reincarnation as usually understood. -Zetetic_chick
-------------------------------------------
This is exactly what I think is going on. I used to have a radio that sat next to my bedside that was real bad about tuning into two stations at the same time. It was so weird! Our old TV's used to do that too. When they had the knobs on them you could sort of halfway get between stations and you'd pick up two stations at once. A child hasn't developed a real strong sense of "self" yet and so it's brain is susceptible to tuning into information from someone else's life. I think probably something similar is going on with hypnotized adults. Since their own sense of "self" is turned off, they are able to tune in to information from the Akashic records or collective unconscious. What I'm saying is that I believe the evidence we have for "reincarnation" is "real", but that the story we have made up to go along witht the evidence is wrong. The theory about what the evidence means is incorrect because we don't really understand how the Universe works. From the many NDE's that I've read no one really wants to come back here once they make it to Heaven. I have a friend at Church, Todd, who got hit by a car when he was 8 years old. He told me he was angry that he was sent back and he spent a good portion of his life trying to do stuff to get back to where he'd been when he was hit by that car. He's now married, middle aged, and has two beautiful sons but he still remembers that light and the love he felt.
Posted by: Art | March 30, 2009 at 06:38 AM
...to living life after life as a "mind" or a "consciousness". Quite an elevation. Could anyone explain to me how living as a "mind" could be any kind of an existence at all? Exactly what does a "mind" do? Think about things? - Al
--------------------------------------------
I think the main purpose of life is to gather information and knowledge about what it's like to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe so we will be able to use this information to "create" our own reality after we cross over.
We experience duality (religion, politics, race, culture, gender, sexual orientation, language, wealth, I.Q., looks, education, etc.) and separation to learn what it's like to be separate, we experience time and space to learn what it means and how it feels to live in a place where time and space exist (what time and space "look" like), and gather memories of what it's like to be alive.
All those things that can't be truly understood without experiencing them for yourself. Life is full of experiences that if you just read about them or even watch a DVD about them you can't really say you know what it's like to do them.
For instance, making love to another person. You can read a book about making love, or even watch a DVD about it, but that doesn't come anywhere near close to what it actually feels, smells, tastes, looks, sounds like with all the accompanying emotion to making love to another person.
And there are little things that can't be truly understood without being experienced. How about what an olive tastes like? If you have never popped an olive in your mouth and bit down on it you can't say you truly know what it's like to eat an olive. If I were to write in a book about eating an olive, describe the slight bitterness, saltiness, texture, etc. you still wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about unless you had at one time eaten an olive. There is an essential flavor to it that can't be captured in words or even by watching someone eat an olive on TV.
If you went to the Amazon Jungle and asked a little Indian boy to make you an ice cream cone, and he had never seen ice cream, and in fact had never experienced anything that cold in his life could he even come close to "knowing" what the heck you were talking about?
Life is full of things that have to be experienced to be understood. Can you learn to drive a car just by reading a book about it? How about if you watched a video about driving a car? Would that be enough? No, the only way to truly know how to drive a car is through experience. That is why we are here.
We are gathering information about what it's like to be alive so that after we cross back over into Heaven we will be able to conjure up whatever kind of reality we might wish to experience. We are "gods" in training.
Heaven is a place where thoughts are things and consciousness creates reality but before you can create any sort of reality you have to have some idea of what you might wish that reality to look like.
"Did you know that I was dead ? It was most extraordinary, my thoughts became persons." A..J. Ayer's NDE
"Suddenly I thought of a mountain, I had seen as a child. When I looked up from the road there it was; The Mountain!" - Mark H's NDE
Posted by: Art | March 30, 2009 at 06:56 AM
In front of a person suffering in grief, test your hell or reincarnation belief in that real life situation and assess it's validity. - Al
-------------------------------------------
It is generally assumed that all New Agey types believe in reincarnation. I'm living proof that ain't true.
And as far as Hell goes? Made up hooey. Twaddle. I believe that everyone becomes enlightened upon entering the light. That is what the Life Review is for. It's just another learning tool. One more learning experience.
Due to those overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness in heaven, i.e. it's "hologrpahic nature" we will know what it was like to be all the people we interacted with in our life. We will feel what they felt, what they thought, for all intents and purposes we will become them.
Posted by: Art | March 30, 2009 at 07:08 AM
As for reincarnation, some people actually like the idea. Thomas Edison wanted to be reincarnated so he could come up with more inventions. Other people may find reincarnation to be a romantic and appealing possibility. (I'm not too keen on it, personally.) - Michael Prescott
--------------------------------------------
People who have never been to Heaven. Once you get to Heaven you won't want to leave. Ever see the movie Star Trek: Generations? In the movie there is a man, Dr. Tolian Soran (Malcolm McDowell)who is trying to get to this matrix where when you are in it all your dreams and wishes come true. They call it the Nexxus, a ribbon of pure energy where when you are in it - its like heaven, you get back all the people in your life that you have lost. Anyway, once you get into the Nexxus you won't want to leave. Once you make it to Heaven, you won't want to leave. Reincarnation is a bunch of hooey.
Posted by: Art | March 30, 2009 at 07:16 AM
Art, I believe that you are wrong about reincarnation. I have researched this subject over 10 years and to me it's clear that reincarnation is the best explanation for these cases.
"A child hasn't developed a real strong sense of "self" yet and so it's brain is susceptible to tuning into information from someone else's life."
How does this explain birthmarks and birth defects? Why does the child identify himself as a deceased person? How does your view explain the strong emotions these children sometimes have and how does it explain phobias in these cases?
I understand that some people think reincarnation as a negative thing. My opinion is just the opposite; we are not separated from our loved ones, but instead we have relationships that transcend death. As a Finnish man I use Finnish cases as example; all those cases (that I know of) are same family cases.
Negative views of reincarnation e.g. being separated from loved ones, being born in other continent, being punished by "karma" etc. are all in my opinion just New Age beliefs without any evidence.
"The difference between a dream world and the afterlife appears to be that the afterlife is a shared dream, or a shared mental construct."
I agree with Michael Prescott. I have had very realistic and interesting lucid dreams. Perhaps dreams, lucid dreams, OBEs etc. are all part of the same whole, but there is different degree of lucidity between them.
Posted by: Raimo | March 30, 2009 at 07:25 AM
So in short QM abnomalies don't really apply to the macroscopic world. - Steen
--------------------------------------------
Yes they do. All chemistry is quantum chemistry and all physics is quantum physics. Ultimately everything in this universe is dependent on what happens in the quantum world.
It's like saying that what happens in a pot of boiling water doesn't have anything to do with what is going on in the burner underneath the pot of boiling water. It has everything to do with the electrons circulating around in eye of the stove.
Posted by: Art | March 30, 2009 at 07:30 AM
Marineboy said it best:
"I suspect that it is a time-based misreading of "interconnection". Also, when people say they felt that "I" had all these past lives, I think the I is not the I they think it is, but the I of interconnection, the I of universal presence incarnating in myraid forms everywhere. Because there are no absolute boundaries to this "I" it seems in an nde as if it is THEY personally."
-------------------------------------------
How does this explain birthmarks and birth defects? - Raimo
-----------------------------------
Thoughts are things and consciousness creates reality. The memories themselves conjure up the "physical" birthmarks.
--------------------------------------------
Why does the child identify himself as a deceased person? How does your view explain the strong emotions these children sometimes have and how does it explain phobias in these cases? - Raimo
------------------------------------------
Because the child hasn't developed their own strong sense of "self" and so the soul is identifying with the memories (from the collective unconscious) of someone else that lived before. All memories are stored somewhere in the "Akashic records" (or whatever you want to call it) and are accessible to be shared. Our separation is an illusion. In a hologram each piece contains the whole and everything is infinitely interconnected.
excerpt from Randy Gehling's (age 10) Near Death Experience:
"That was really cool! I kind of felt as though my body exploded - in a nice way - and became a million different atoms - and each single atom could think its own thoughts and have its own feelings. All at once I seemed to feel like I was a boy, a girl, a dog, a cat, a fish. Then I felt like I was an old man, an old woman - and then a little tiny baby."
http://near-death.com/experiences/animals04.html
What we percieve to be reincarnation is an illusion created by the nature of the way the Universe is made. Our brains are designed to be recievers and transmitters of information. A young brain is still tuned into the information universe and hasn't yet formed a firm picture of what "self" is. The tiny little mind is picking up information from someone's life that has lived in the past.
According to Dr. Fred Alan Wolf matter is a epiphenomena of consciousness. Consciousness is primary and matter is secondary. What does this have to do with reincarnation? It explains how or why some children manifest physical characteristics of people they supposedly "were" in a past life. When their minds are forming they are picking up this information and their bodies manifest those physical characteristics.
In past life hypnotic regression what happens is a persons natural filter is turned off and they are able to access the Explicate Spiritual Universe where all information is stored. Their minds tune into someone elses life that lived in the past. Everything we have done in our lives is stored on the cosmic hologram. If your interested in what that is go to about.com and do a search on string theory and the holographic paradigm.
It's much to complicated to go into it on this forum, but the internet has a ton of information on the holographic nature of the universe. We are here to learn "self", what it means to be an individual. The whole physical universe is set up to teach us seperateness, because the other side, the implicate spiritual universe is so connected or "one" that duality is the only thing we can't learn on the other side. Everything manifested in this physical universe, height, weight, color, sex, etc., exists to teach us that we are seperate individuals, with our own identity. We exist in the physical to become an individual. The holographic universe explains everything that ever was or ever will be.
People that have had a near death experience come back and oftentimes comment on how they felt this tremendous sense of oneness and connectedness to everything in the entire universe. The reason for that is because in a hologram all the information is stored throughout the entire hologram. - Art
At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. . . What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is."
http://earthportals.com/hologram.html
There have been some 20 billion humans that have lived since *beep* sapiens first evolved. That's 20 billion lives worth of information that is stored in the cosmic hologram which people (children and hypnotized adults) can tap into when their minds natural information filter is turned off or tuned to the wrong "channel."
What we percieve to be reincarnation is an illusion created by the way the Universe and our minds are designed. - Art
Posted by: Art | March 30, 2009 at 09:33 AM
Reincarnation isn't hooey.
The difficulty is that the reality is more subtle and complex than that which the word typically connotes.
(This reminds me a bit of "holographic universe." Some who use this term tend to employ it as a label that covers and greatly simplifies complex realities.)
Using our limited language we can only sketch out crude analogies, while attempts to prove the reality generally meet with failure, despite some promising evidence.
First, as posted above, it's plain that a part of mind transcends time.
This suggests the idea of serial life experiences taking place one-after-another, like the days of the week, is misleading.
Key to my own understanding of reincarnation is the existence of entity (some might use "soul" instead; as I've noted above, this carries lots of baggage, however, most of it associated with specific religious traditions).
Entity is that region of self from which all life experiences are extensions or projections.
Entity is accessible, consciously, but at present there are no universally accepted methods for doing this. The result is a great variety of "anecdotal" evidence.
You are your entity; this is not normally apparent, however, owing to the way outward focused ego tends to imagine itself as being separate and distinct from all else.
So the simplified picture is of a being who exists outside of time but projects itself into time, and not just a single time.
This will vary from one entity to another, but there will be entities who have thousands or even tens of thousands of such projections -- such selves, life expressions, or aspects -- residing in a great number of time periods (and probable time periods, but that adds more complexity to this picture so I'll leave it out for now).
Nothing prevents an entity from expressing itself as multiple embodied personalities in the same time, another idea that runs counter to usual ideas of reincarnation.
Once again, this gets into knowing and once again, whatever knowing one person achieves may not be achieved by another, such that they will never accept whatever the first may have to say on the topic.
Once again, this knowing is "located" in the subconscious/unconscious, and once again, any successful method for gaining this knowing will involve consciously accessing those areas and successfully remembering them.
Thus if Art says "reincarnation is hooey" this says to me that Art lacks the knowing I have experienced and hasn't bothered to master any of the above methods. As is said, "comment is free but facts are sacred" but here the facts are different in nature from the facts of an article in an antique newspaper such as the Manchester Guardian. These "facts" aren't based on simple observation and won't stand up in a court of law.
Writing about this knowing is fraught with difficulty. I have often been annoyed by those who claim to have experienced some great knowing or gnosis and yet here I am, claiming I know something very basic and intrinsic to all human life that Art, apparently, doesn't know -- consciously.
I am not suggesting Art is a complete idiot while I have achieved some incredible breakthrough in conscious awareness, that I am somehow "enlightened."
I am saying that Art has clearly not experienced some of the experiences that have led to my own knowing.
I believe that, given sufficient time, and if Art were willing, he could learn various techniques that might lead to a similar knowing on his part.
This particular situation relative to Art and me points to the larger overall conundrum we face in dealing with many of the topics featured here on Michael's blog.
Let me briefly return to the immediate topic of reincarnation.
If I can access "entity" -- a presently existing awareness, found in my own unconscious mind that includes endless life experiences in a great many past (and future) time periods -- then I can very likely find various ways to "tune in" to at least some of these experiences, these selves.
Some of these other selves will be, in some ways, quite different from me. They will think in some different language, believe things I find either preposterous, untenable, or even unimaginable, reside in a very different culture or civilization, and so on.
Others, however, will be much "closer;" they might think in a variation of English that is not so different from mine, while the society they find themselves in will also be somewhat similar to mine.
In such cases I may be able to enable their expression through me. This won't be perfect, and the mere effort will change both of us, yet more of my personal "knowing" will result.
(Each self is like the finger on the hand of entity.)
Anyone else can easily attribute this to my own imagination and -- unless I invest great gobs of time and money by, say, traveling to the country of this other self, hiring a hypnotist, and finding details known only to this other self buried in my unconscious and verifiable by researching obscure letters and records -- I have no way to prove otherwise.
Of the several score "other selves" I'm aware of, a few exist in our present historical record.
Of these, only one has a mind "programmed" anything like mine, that is, in _relatively_ modern English.
Another such self lives in England, also, but as his England is older, his English is something only a scholar could tackle, while his society is very different from ours.
These variations become multiplied when I attempt to access additional other selves. There is a prominent personality living a mere 2.5 centuries ago I sometimes access (this seems, at some moments, as though he looks out at my world through my eyes). He thinks in French, however, a language I have but a passing familiarity with, and it is a bygone French.
All selves of the same entity share certain traits, but in some selves certain psychological traits will be exaggerated or minimized, depending on circumstances.
The act of writing is one major connection between me and a particular "past" self; I frequently connect with this particular self when writing, but the topics he focused on during his life are quite different from those I focus on, while our educational backgrounds are very different (I have almost no formal education past high school).
The result reflects a merging of our abilities and interests, which can be quite bizarre, particularly considering his dislike of anything dealing remotely with "spiritualism." It's also true that after discovering him, I've gradually read up on his life and his world. Although this felt very familiar to me -- and once embarked on this I had a strong desire to continue -- it may add fuel to those who believe I am simply imagining this or making it up. (Too bad! I say; I know what I know, whether I can prove it or not.)
There are a great many people I've encountered over the years who share experiences similar to mine.
There are even those among them who have experimented with trance writing, as I have, some of them much more skilled at this than me. They can bring someone "dead" for centuries back to life, in their immediate present, in a certain kind of way.
I marvel at their ability; there's something about those who write fiction that gives them an edge here, too, while my own writing is almost entirely non-fiction, which throws up certain barriers, while very often my own ego -- and past egos -- strengthen these barriers.
I truly wish that many more would take the time to explore the various techniques and methods that exist for gaining access to both their own greater self, soul, or entity and any number of other selves.
If Art were to do this, for example, he might allow some other personality to gain expression and post some it here. Very likely this other self would not care at all for the term "holographic universe" while putting "reincarnation is hooey" to the lie.
Bill I.
Posted by: Bill I. | March 30, 2009 at 09:49 AM
On a Steven Novella blog I recently read a response to why using QM to explain psi is scientifically unfounded
That comment together with the next one makes it self-defeating: "I don't think Steven really understands QM himself, because if he doesn't understand QM, why do you rely on his arguments on QM to refute other people ideas on QM? How do you know if Steven is right instead of the people who he is criticizing?
It's like to use the arguments of a person who doesn't understand biology to refute another person's ideas on biology. Only if you understand biology yourself you can discern who is right, and in that case you don't need to quote a person who doesn't understand it (i.e. an incompetent and unreliable authority).
but the valid point here is that neither does many of the newage philosophers referencing to QM for a possible explanation for PSI.
What new age philosophers? Serious scientists arguing for the relevance of quantum mechanics to explain psi (like Dean Radin in his book "Entangled Minds") aren't "new age" philosophers.
Your comment shows not only ignorance of the best literature on psi and afterlife, but a crude misrepresentation and intentional dismiss of it.
For example, the comment "So in short QM abnomalies don't really apply to the macroscopic world" is simply false, or at least controversial (see the reference below), because there is not an ontological difference between "macroscopic" and "microscopic" worlds; they're perceptual, subjetive or phenomenological differences based on our human senses, not physical/objective differences.
Here, we've explained the arguments, reasons, etc to support dualism, afterlife and psi, and why materialist arguments fails; and we have recommended serious literature relevant to it. But you keep talking about "survival believers", "abuses of QM", "Brain generates consciousness" etc. showing that you have not studied the best literature nor understood the arguments.
If you only read authors that support your views (like Steven Novella, a guy who acording to yourself doesn't "really understands QM himself", but whose views on QM you respect enough to quote them), then you never will learn the best case for the positions you disagree with.
You'll keep repeating the same ill-informed opinions, reinforcing you preconceived ideas.
A cursory reading of a book like "Quantum Enigma" by professional physicists (not "new age" philosophers or "survival believers") Bruce Rosemblum and Fredd Kuttner will expose the ill-informed of Steven's views, whick you endorse.
http://quantumenigma.com/
One should have at least some basic knowledge of afterlife and psi best literature to make relevant opinions about it, and avoid misrepresentations and simplistic straw men.
If he believes that the mind/consciousness complex attaches itself to a newly developing material body (a fetus, say), then his view would be consistent with reincarnation as normally understood
Michael, in my opinion Beichler's thesis (we're speculating, because we don't know his actual views on reincarnation) is problematic with reincarnation as normally understood.
The mind/consciousness complex attaches itself to a newly developing material body would imply that a fully developed 5-dimensional mind is already existing when a material body (fetus) is forming; but Beichler thinks that mind development is simultaneous with brain development, not previous to it.
Thus, where is the mind development corresponding to the fetus development? If the fetus takes another 5-D mind, then he's not developing his own mind corresponding to his particular brain... but parasiting another one.
And if the child develop his own mind too, then with his "extra" 5-D mind we'd expect he having two personalities or souls (the specific of the child and the 5-D mind); but reincarnation suggest that the soul is the same (not two), only that living in different bodies in different times.
A possible objection would be the 5-D mind is not fully developed in cases of persons died in a youth age; or when the death has been violent. This would explain that reincarnation cases are often seen in cases of violent deaths, and it would seem consistent with Beichler's view.
Anyway, if a mind is already in the 5-Dimension, I see no plausible reason to think it will return to the 4-D in another body, unless that Beichler's theory enable this kind of apparent "involutions" or "regressions".
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | March 30, 2009 at 10:00 AM
This particular situation relative to Art and me points to the larger overall conundrum we face in dealing with many of the topics featured here on Michael's blog. - Bill I.
-------------------------------------
Yeah, it's called "duality and separation," two inherent and inescapable properties of the physical universe, and I predict lots and lots of it will be experienced far into the future for many generations to come.
Posted by: Art | March 30, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Ultimately all physics is quantum physics and all chemistry is quantum chemistry. Think about it.
Posted by: Art | March 30, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Art: "Yeah, it's called "duality and separation," two inherent and inescapable properties of the physical universe, and I predict lots and lots of it will be experienced far into the future for many generations to come."
Dear Art:
For whatever reason, you consistently ignore the primary thrust of the majority of my comments here, that methods exist that enable at least a momentary transcendence of "physical reality."
None of these have yet to attain universal acceptance but that doesn't prevent anyone from teaching themselves some variation.
Anyone who does so will be forced -- even if reluctantly -- to reconsider whatever fond beliefs they may have, as the resulting experience in all likelihood will conflict with those beliefs.
I must question, again and again, a statement that refers to "duality and separation," as "two inherent and inescapable properties of the physical universe."
These aren't truly "inherent and inescapable" -- this is merely your own belief, nothing more.
Regards
Posted by: Bill I. | March 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM
What I've found in life is that a little bit of what we believe is true and a whole lot of it is twaddle.
I remember once seeing and hearing a preacher preach a sermon where he held up the Bible and said "it's either all true or it's all lies." Now when I was nineteen years old that made a little bit of sense to me, but now that I'm a whole lot older I know that's hogwash. It doesn't have to be "it's either all true or it's all lies." It can be a little bit of both.
Reincarnation? Some of it's true, and some it's made up twaddle.
Posted by: Art | March 30, 2009 at 10:37 AM
"At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram"
So the hologram is proliferating? Logical, I suppose. If a hologram is vaporised, you must get millions more.
Posted by: . | March 30, 2009 at 10:40 AM
I must question, again and again, a statement that refers to "duality and separation," as "two inherent and inescapable properties of the physical universe."These aren't truly "inherent and inescapable" -- this is merely your own belief, nothing more. - Bill I.
-------------------------------------------
So you weren't born of a woman and your umbilical cord was never cut? You don't use the restroom and go #1 and #2? Someone you love has never died? You've never lost a friend? You've never had to move away from home? You still live at home with your parents? Oh, that's right, you never separated from your mother so you've never experienced that kind of separation! You must be writing all these posts from inside your mother's womb! That's a good trick!
Posted by: Art | March 30, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Disagreeing on message boards/blogs is just another way of experiencing duality and separation.
Posted by: Art | March 30, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Art wrote:
"Thoughts are things and consciousness creates reality. The memories themselves conjure up the "physical" birthmarks."
You missed my point. Baby has a birthmark or birth defect before he is born. Thus the paranormal mechanism that produces birthmarks in these cases is working before the child is born.
Why does that baby have certain person's memories, birthmarks, phobias etc? If your theory would be correct, then that baby could have any random memories from Akashic Records. Why does he have one person's personal memories and also other things, like phobias that are unique to that deceased individual?
In my opinion evidence shows that discarnate spirit borns to a new body. You seem to quote lots of things NDErs have said. What about NDErs who have seen their past lives during NDEs?
Posted by: Raimo | March 30, 2009 at 11:35 AM
One more thing. Some children remember their previous life, life as a discarnate spirit after their death and they remember also how they choose their parents, or were drawn to their present parents. They remember events up to their birth. Some of them even have memories from the time when their mothers were pregnant with them. Therefore they remember the whole proces: previous life, death, life as a discarnate spirit, choosing their parents or being drawn to them and being born in a new body.
You don't believe in reincarnation and I don't believe in your holographic hypothesis. It's probably best to just agree that we disagree.
Posted by: Raimo | March 30, 2009 at 11:47 AM
Art: "So you weren't born of a woman and your umbilical cord was never cut? You don't use the restroom and go #1 and #2? Someone you love has never died? You've never lost a friend? You've never had to move away from home? You still live at home with your parents? Oh, that's right, you never separated from your mother so you've never experienced that kind of separation! You must be writing all these posts from inside your mother's womb! That's a good trick!"
Dear Art:
You ask ridiculous and pointless questions.
It's clear that thoughts that don't agree with your beliefs offend you, put you into a very defensive and even aggressive mode. (This is characteristic of all of us -- we will defend our most deeply held beliefs with great emotion.)
What I ask, again and again, is that those who disagree with me at least try some of the methods and exercises I've come across, and continue to come across.
It's as though you will defend your beliefs in your own separateness to the end, ignoring all possible suggestions as to ways to perceive and know anything to the contrary. Why is this? Fear is not unusual in this situation, and it's a most basic fear -- a loss of identity. This fear is the key to separateness; it creates barriers to perception. This has nothing to do with "inherent" properties, or what some favorite author would have you believe.
I can relate to this sort of behavior and this fear quite well, as I once refuted various statements regarding our underlying connectivity, our underlying nature, in similar ways. They contradicted my own then strongly held beliefs.
Certainly I am as physical as you are, with all that goes with that.
I am not just physical, however, as we understand the term.
I suppose it's possible that you are strictly a physical creature, limited to your physical senses and conscious mind -- "soul-less" someone might say.
I doubt this very much, however.
Regards
Posted by: Bill I. | March 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM
The bigger an object the smaller the de Broglie wavelength, and for macroscopic objects it is insignificantly small. This determines in essence the degree of quantum uncertainty, which is so tiny we can ignore it for macroscopic objects.
Some physicists believe they will be able to entangle so-called "massive" objects like buckyballs (60-atom molecules).
An excerpt from a 2002 news item:
From the same Web page, a report of an experiment that apparently did entangle "massive" objects:
I'm not saying quantum entanglement applies to psi, however. I have no idea if it does or not.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | March 30, 2009 at 12:04 PM
“It is generally assumed that all New Agey types believe in reincarnation. I'm living proof that ain't true.”
We humans love to put labels on people that don’t agree with our beliefs. It is the deception of the insecure ego. This is the normal phase of the ego self whether in this life or other lives on earth or in other dimensions. We are learning we are learning we are learning love and divine intelligence and duality and separation are part of that process.
We see this label phenomenon especially with those that hold strong religious and political ideologies. Recently I heard a TV personality call people on a certain blog “insects”. This person has also suggested that a person should be killed for their beliefs to protect our democracy. Calling people insects or gooks or evil allows us to dehumanize those that disagree with us and gives us an excuse not to take their comments seriously and our paradigms and beliefs remain intact.
“Once you make it to Heaven, you won't want to leave. Reincarnation is a bunch of hooey.”
Or we just close the door and call something that does not agree with our beliefs a bunch of hooey.
“Reincarnation? Some of it's true, and some it's made up twaddle.”
Unless I am missing something these statements they appear to be contradictory.
“These aren't truly "inherent and inescapable" -- this is merely your own belief, nothing more.”
Could you both be right to a degree? I believe art and bill have a point. From my point of view this duality and separation appear to be a phase the soul goes through on its evolutionary journey. It appears every soul of the earth variety goes through this phase of development.
But as bill points out they are not truly inescapable from his point of view as we can realize even if for a moment this oneness of the universal all. I found years ago that I had to move beyond just researching NDE’s as they are only a snapshot of life after death and can be misleading. NDE’s were my first research interest. These mysteries of life do not give themselves up easily as they have held their “secrets” from some of the best scientists in the world.
It appears that god likes a lot more drama then a one life on earth then a heaven scenario. Each soul’s journey is unique and that takes some doing.
It is very mentality painful to think you have it figured all out and it fits your cherished beliefs and then wow something comes into to your life that challenges your cherished beliefs.
“that methods exist that enable at least a momentary transcendence of "physical reality."
This appears to be what a NDE does for these people that come back and tell us how wonderful that experience was. Now as far an all knowing I have not read one NDE person that convinced me they were all knowing. I.e. their journey of learning continues.
Posted by: william | March 30, 2009 at 12:33 PM
All the talk about quantum mechanics, mind, soul, afterlife, SOFT, etc, is just an attempt to try to model and express a description of something for which we have no real understanding. None of these ideas explains how any of these conditions and behaviours arise. All theories are the same, each is just a current fad that is flavor of the month for while and then is superseded or modified. I am not sure if anybody has already mentioned this, but (and I am sure many people are already aware of this) there seems to be empirical evidence that our current 'reality' and the probability of certain events occurring can in some instances be influenced by what we term our sub-conscious. I have experienced empirical evidence for this at first hand. Therefore, our 3 dimensional environment may not be quite as unchanging as it seems, and is only generally subject to some form of consensus. Does ths in any way contradict or reinforce the SOFT theory?
Posted by: Andrew Shepherd | March 30, 2009 at 12:54 PM
It's true that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with any of this. Quantum mechanics is a theory of physics. If consciousness is not physical, then physics has nothing to say about it. Even Dean Radin admits that he borrowed entanglement from physics, that the physics version means something different than what he means by entanglement, and that he has no idea if any kind of entanglement really has anything to do with psi, but that he mentions it to make psi more believable to people who want a mechanism. This is in the questions & answers part of his online video talk with Google techies.
Posted by: Shamus | March 30, 2009 at 02:19 PM
“All the talk about quantum mechanics, mind, soul, afterlife, SOFT, etc, is just an attempt to try to model and express a description of something for which we have no real understanding”
From my point of view there is an abundance of empirical evidence to support many of the topics discussed on this blog such as a soul or an afterlife or the validity of NDE’s. But it takes lots of research to separate opinion and fraud from evidence. There is an abundance of misinformation and sometimes out and out fraud.
As far as understanding well understanding comes from realization not empirical evidence but then my definition of understanding may be different than others definition.
Also from my point of view there is more evidence for an afterlife and a soul that has a perceived individualized personality than for Darwinism. Again it takes a lot of research and a mind not already convinced that it knows what reality is and is not.
It took years of my own personal reading and studying many areas of the paranormal before I could ever make such a statement as above. People are convicted everyday in this country on a lot less empirical evidence.
I would just like one skeptic to read the book no living person could have known and get back to me and explain away the contents in this book. My research also indicates that such statement as I quoted above very seldom has that person done an abundance of research.
Many scientists that have set out to debunk the paranormal some have become its biggest supporters unless of course they are what we term an ultra skeptic and then their research into the paranormal will bear little new knowledge.
Posted by: william | March 30, 2009 at 03:46 PM
"Thus a person who receives a transplanted organ might acquire a connection to the donor's mind in fifth-dimensional space."
Might pay to leave instructions
Ha!if a person were to interpret it on the surface level only, but I beleive alot more is in the material sense of the cell that stays within itself *intact* why else would drugs be given so that the organ isn,t rejected? to my thinking that organ with cells stay the same and is fed or nurished to stay alive with what it needs...it doesn,t take on memory or its previous owner and pass it on to its new owner, impossible unless. . .the whole concept of life as we,ve been taught goes down to the tiniest denominator and that controller is random selection as darwinism? I think not. every atom that is conceived knows its root therefore its separate from anything similar because of its coded imprint, but still resonates with likeness or alighned communication with its neighbors of that sine-wave characteristic.
.The Whole is the Mover call it anything but I call it God.
Posted by: Alley Eden | March 30, 2009 at 05:54 PM
I think if a person looks at the evidence for survival it appears it is best explained by substance dualism. I could be wrong.
Posted by: Leo MacDonald | March 30, 2009 at 06:01 PM
“it doesn,t take on memory or its previous owner and pass it on to its new owner,”
Don’t be so sure of that as there are cases I have read where the new owner of an organ acquired some food tastes of the donor. If it is valid it sure does not take away my concept of a universal intelligence that most call god.
“I think if a person looks at the evidence for survival it appears it is best explained by substance dualism. I could be wrong.”
OR
“This position (substance dualism) contrasts with that of substance monism, according to which minds are part of the physical, public world, and so could, in principle, be equally accessible to everyone.”
Posted by: william | March 30, 2009 at 10:04 PM
It's true that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with any of this. Quantum mechanics is a theory of physics. If consciousness is not physical, then physics has nothing to say about it.
Just my point. Quantum Mechanics is the description of physical systems at the microscopic scale. Even reducing chemistry to quantum mechanics is controversial not something universally accepted but apparently something taken for granted by some debaters in here.
I wish people would leave it out of the discussion of consciousness. We do not have a scientifical understanding of what consciousness is - so there is no reason to pep up consciousness with strange physical phenomenas which impact on the macroscopic world we have no clue to anyway.
I think the reason why James Beichler includes QM into his theory is because he is a physicist. They are usually reductionist belivers by heart - looking for the grand unified theory explaining everything.
If the subjective phenomenas really are true then I see no reason why the reductionist paradigm would survive. I think the more interesting research approach would be additional NDE research and more research into when and how psi phenomenas occurs and why psi is to elusive. E.g. some Ganzfeld studies shows a considerable psi effect that clearly beats chance while some studies do not show any effect at all. Why is that? Getting more consistent results would be a great place to start imo.
Posted by: Steen Bundgaard | March 31, 2009 at 01:23 AM
The reason quantum mechanics is discussed with consciousness is because the standard Copenhagen intepretation is subjective- ie. non-physical. The theory is used to predict what conscious experiences will be had by human beings, and suggests that there is no way to describe the 'physical' reality that is occurs between those experiences.
"Mindful Universe" by Henry Stapp is the best book about this available today.
Posted by: sonic | March 31, 2009 at 01:50 AM
It's true that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with any of this. Quantum mechanics is a theory of physics. If consciousness is not physical, then physics has nothing to say about it
I tend to think that consciousness is not physical and, hence, quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the origin of consciousness (i.e. consciousness can't be explained by quantum physics).
But consciousness interact with the physical world (e.g. acting on the brain, or on the body like in the placebo effect; or modifying other physical systems like in psychokinesis). As consequence, if consciousness interacts with the physical world, then quantum mechanics (the best scientific theory of the physical world) could have something to do with it.
Also, quantum effects are possible in the brain(some, like Henry Stapp, consider the brain a quantum system), and given that consciousness has causal influence on the brain (and brain on consciousness), then some relationship between consciousness and the quantum systems (like the brain) is plausible.
If the physical world has nothing to do with consciousness, then appealing to quantum mechanics would be superfluous. But given that consciousness has demostrable physical effects or, at least, interactions with physical systems, then considering possible mechanism of interaction or causation based on quantum mechanics can't be discarded. And it implies that QM could have something to do with consciousness.
In the book "Quantum Enigma", the authors (who are skeptical of psi) say that if psi exist, then some of the aspects of quantum mechanics are relevant as a possible explanation.
And physicist Brian Josephson has developed some ideas pointing out a possible utilization of quantum non-locality in biological organism (with implications for psi):
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/bell.html
It doesn't prove that quantum mechanics explain psi, or survival or consciousness.
But it clearly refutes the ill-informed idea that the use of QM to try to make sense of psi or survival is only an abuse by the "survival believers" or "new age philosophers".
Such dismissive opinion is factually and demostrably false.
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | March 31, 2009 at 04:07 AM
For the record:
I quote a relevant point of Dean Radins' book Entangled Minds:
"Scientists are now finding that are ways in which the effects of macroscopic entanglements "scale up" into our macroscopic world."
"Some scientists suggest that the remarkable degree of coherence displayed in living systems might depend in some fundamental way on quantum effects like entanglement"
Then (about the book's purpose) "Then we'll explore the fabric of reality as revelead by modern physics and see why it's becoming incresingly relevant to understanding why and how psi exists" (all the quotes from the page 3)
Radin discusses many theories of psi, and mentions their problems too.
But the point here is that QM is relevant (at least as a possibility) to explain psi, because some types of psi implies consciousness acting on physical systems or entities (and ocurring in biological organisms), and because some QM effects exists (or are possible) in the "macroscopic" world (which includes living beings).
Note Radin's comment about some scientists (not "survival believers" or "new age philosophers"...) considering how some quantum effects "scale up" into our macroscopic world.
As I said, in the Quantun Enigma book, the authors explains the common misconception about QM as limited to the microscopic world alone. Classical physics is only an approximation to QM, not a substitute of it.
The distinction between a "microscopic" world and a "macroscopic" world is not ontological (about the nature of reality), but based on our phenomenology and perceptual senses (e.g. macroscopically, my pen is a solid object; but physically it is not "solid" at all; Also, right now, I'm seeing my keyboard as an static object; but physics has shown that actually my keyboard and any other compact physical object consist of a sets of rapidly moving particles).
The macroscopic view of my pen or keyboard as static objects is only an optical illusion (based in the limitation of my senses that prevents me of seeing the tiny moving particles that compose them), and my description of these objects as solid and compact is, from a physical point of view, wrong. (Phenomenologically, and for most practical purposes, it's fine to say they're solid and compact. But it doesn't refute the true physical essence of the object: a set of very small and rapidily moving quantum particles )
Classical physics, that was developed before QM, was postulated to explain objects as we commonly see them (from our phenomenological "macroscopic" perspective). But given it's only an approximation, not the correct (or more correct) theory, it fails if you try to use it to explain quantum effects.
But these quantum effects probably exists (if we perceive it or not) even in macroscopic objects since they're not intrinsically macroscopic; they only appears like that to us.
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | March 31, 2009 at 05:04 AM
In the first quote of Radin's book, I made an error of typing: I wrote "macroscopic entanglements "scale up" into our macroscopic world", when actually is "microscopic entanglements "scale up" into our macroscopic world"" (and this specific quote is from page 2)
The error was obvious in the context of the citation, but an explicit mention of it is necessary to avoid misunderstandings.
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | March 31, 2009 at 05:31 AM
some Ganzfeld studies shows a considerable psi effect that clearly beats chance while some studies do not show any effect at all. Why is that? Getting more consistent results would be a great place to start imo.
This is perhaps the most common criticism of the Ganzfeld tests, but it is based on a misunderstanding that, I believe, has been deliberately propagated by media skeptics.
The classic Ganzfeld tests do show consistent results. Over thousands of trials, positive outcomes were 31-33%, when chance would dictate 25%. Given the large number of trials, these results have major statistical significance. There was no significant difference between the results obtained in the original Ganzfeld trials vs. the so-called auto-Ganzfeld tests, in which more elaborate precautions were taken to prevent information leakage.
Where, then, does the idea of "inconsistent results" arise? It comes about because after thousands of Ganzfeld tests had been done, the researchers decided they had sufficiently established the phenomenon of ESP. They then decided to change the experiment to look for a different form of ESP.
The main series of Ganzfeld tests involved visual images - pictures and video clips. This is the series that yielded results of 31-33%, well above chance. The newer series of Ganzfeld tests involved sounds. The test subject was asked to report on any sounds that he might pick up telepathically or clairaudiently.
The series of tests involving sound yielded only chance results - i.e., there was no evidence of ESP.
The researchers' tentative conclusion was that most people have some latent ESP abilities with regard to visual images, but not with regard to sounds.
Skeptics have taken the two sets of experiments and conflated them, claiming that some Ganzfeld tests yield above-chance results and others don't. But this is a misrepresentation. It's comparing apples and oranges.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | March 31, 2009 at 11:29 AM
This is perhaps the most common criticism of the Ganzfeld tests, but it is based on a misunderstanding that, I believe, has been deliberately propagated by media skeptics.
The classic Ganzfeld tests do show consistent results. Over thousands of trials, positive outcomes were 31-33%,
This viewpoint isn't shared by all researches into the paranormal.
In this interview (http://www.psican.org/alpha/index.php?/20090114197/Research-Experiments/Interview-With-Dr.-Caroline-Watt.html) Dr. Caroline Watt member of the Koestler Parapsychology Unit, Edinburgh University(one of the few universities still actively doing research into the paranormal) says
There has been an improvement in finding laboratory methods that are both rigorous as well as being more ecologically valid (more similar to real-life experiences) than the early lab research that used the so-called 'Zener cards' for testing. The ganzfeld method for testing ESP is probably one of those. This is a mild sensory isolation procedure, and many parapsychologists argue that studies using this method have provided replicable evidence for psi. However, some ganzfeld studies have found chance results, and parapsychologists still don't have a good understanding of the conditions necessary for obtaining evidence in support of the psi hypothesis.
I think the 31-33% success rate is achieved when analysing multiple studies with the statistical tool called meta-analysis. Not that I know anything about the mathematics of this.
Posted by: Steen Bundgaard | March 31, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Regarding Gandzfeld, replication of psi and meta-analysis, these papers are important:
Statistics professor Jessica Utts paper:
http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/91rmp.html
Skeptic Hyman's criticism of it:
http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/91rmp-c5.html
Utts' reply:
http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/91rmp-r.html
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | March 31, 2009 at 01:01 PM
I think the 31-33% success rate is achieved when analysing multiple studies with the statistical tool called meta-analysis
This is false.
However, some ganzfeld studies have found chance results
I devoted seven paragraphs to explaining this. Since you obviously aren't reading my comments, I see no point in continuing to reply to yours.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | March 31, 2009 at 03:26 PM
Off-topic:
See this article Distant Healing and some of the silly and emotional pseudoskeptical commentaries below it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/srinivasan-pillay/the-science-of-distant-he_b_177986.html
LOL.
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | March 31, 2009 at 05:07 PM
Excerpt from an online article about Emmanuel Swedenborg:
"Dole who holds degrees from Yale, Oxford, and Harvard, notes that one of the most basic tenets of Swedenborg's thinking is that our universe is constantly created and sustained by two wavelike flows, one from heaven and one coming from our own soul or spirit. "If we put these images together, the resemblance to the hologram is striking" says Dole.
"We are constituted by the intersection of two flows—one direct, from the divine, and one indirect, from the divine via our environment. We can view ourselves as interference patterns, because the inflow is a wave phenomenon, and we are where the waves meet."
http://www.soultravel.se/2004/040907-swedenborg/index.shtml
Posted by: Art | March 31, 2009 at 07:59 PM
Dowsing might be another way in which this 5th dimension impinges on us or vice versa. Comments?
Posted by: Roger Knights | April 01, 2009 at 02:02 AM
I devoted seven paragraphs to explaining this. Since you obviously aren't reading my comments, I see no point in continuing to reply to yours.
Michael you frequently point out how sceptics ignore paranormal research and refute this type of research without even studying the available evidence.
I feel in this matter you do the same. As it can also be read in Jessica Utt's first paper referenced by 'Zetetic chick' above:
The data base analyzed by Hyman and Honorton (1986) consisted of results taken from 34 reports written by a total of 47 authors. Honorton counted 42 separate experiments described in the reports, of which 28 reported enough information to determine the number of direct hits achieved. Twenty three of the studies (55%) were classified by Honorton as having achieved statistical significance at 0.05.
Charles Honorton was one of the Ganzfeld procedures foremost supporters.
Posted by: Steen Bundgaard | April 01, 2009 at 02:07 AM
E.g. some Ganzfeld studies shows a considerable psi effect that clearly beats chance while some studies do not show any effect at all. Why is that? Getting more consistent results would be a great place to start imo.
This is no reason to refuse Ganzfeld. With many medicines it happens the same. From the book 21 days:
Let’s make one example: you have probably heard that Aspirin is used in patients who have a heart condition in order to prevent blood clotting and lower the risk of myocardial infarction.
How was the effectiveness of this preventive measure initially assessed? Through the usual scientific method employed in such cases: some 25 Universities carried out clinical trials. The problem is that, although practically all trials showed that there was indeed a positive effect, statistics came in the way: in only five trials out of 25 it was certain that the positive effect was not due to chance. In the other 20 trials, the routine statistical analysis showed that the positive effects might have been obtained by chance. A reviewer who was skeptical of Aspirin’s ability to reduce heart attacks might then have looked at these trials and remain unconvinced.
And here is where meta-analysis comes into place: such a technique was employed to review the Aspirin trials collectively, and the results were published in 1988 in the British Medical Journal. The outcome of the analysis was widely described in the news media as a medical breakthrough: when the results of all the studies are combined through meta‐analysis, chance is clearly ruled out. Metaanalysis declared that Aspirin is indeed effective in reducing heart attacks, and, as we all know, Aspirin has been used worldwide for the last 20 years with excellent results.
Posted by: Vitor | April 01, 2009 at 07:33 AM
Steen said: I think the 31-33% success rate is achieved when analysing multiple studies with the statistical tool called meta-analysis
Prescott said: This is false.
I say: In this point, Steen is right.
Posted by: Vitor | April 01, 2009 at 11:02 AM
So is this what it comes down to? Statistics?
No wonder Michael H has left.
Posted by: Teri | April 01, 2009 at 12:03 PM
I will make no more comments on this blog as I enjoy reading it so much and I don't want to disturb the discussions taking place with my pessimistic viewpoints. I miss reading Michael H's comments too. Also my prerequisites for participating in the debate is inadequate so please ignore my above comments about the Ganzfeld experiments.
Posted by: Steen Bundgaard | April 01, 2009 at 12:23 PM
In this point, Steen is right.
There have certainly been meta-analyses of ganzfeld tests. But even without meta-analysis, there have been statistically significant results.
From this Web site:
In short, Steen's statement that "the 31-33% success rate is achieved when analysing multiple studies with the statistical tool called meta-analysis" is incorrect. The same success rate (or even slightly better) has been achieved without meta-analysis, as the above quote indicates.
I get tired of arguing this point because the evidence is readily available, and yet people continue to ignore it. Take this highly misleading Web article, for instance (one that relies exclusively on CSICOP sources).
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 01, 2009 at 12:42 PM
“This surely won't be the final test of ganzfeld--parapsychologists undoubtedly will continue to use it in hopes of proving the existence of ESP. It's good that they're using scientific methodology, but they must be continuously aware of their own biases and make sure those don't enter into the analysis. Unfortunately, history tells us that in the field of parapsychology that happens all too often” web article referenced by michael P.
Also history tells us that in the field of ultra skepticism these biases also happens all to often. OK EVERY TIME. The two experiments that CSICOP has done were a shame in design and when reporting the results. My research has shown that these ultra skeptics can be as bias as a preacher holding up his black book and trying to convince everyone in attendance it is all truth.
As I have stated on this blog several times when I started this research almost two decades ago I thought that the atheists would be the least bias maybe even no bias as they did not have conditioned religious beliefs to deal with. Boy was I wrong it is a very slippery slope being an atheist as one unexplained event or experience could bring the entire house of cherished beliefs tumbling down.
Posted by: william | April 01, 2009 at 01:34 PM
Prescott, even in these 11 experimental series using autoganzfeld we found one (01)that do not show any effect at all. The hit rate were:
01. 36%
02. 33%
03. 29%
04. 24% (this is the study that do not show any effect)
05. 36%
06. 30%
07. 33%
08. 50%
09. 43%
10. 30%
11. 54%
Overall: 32%
All this is in Table 1 of the article "Does PSI Exist? Replicable Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer. (1994) Psychological Bulletin, 115, (pp. 4-18). Daryl. J. Bem, & Charles Honorton.
The article is here:
http://dbem.ws/Does%20Psi%20Exist%3F.pdf
Best wishes.
Posted by: Vitor | April 01, 2009 at 01:42 PM
The other blog post was closed, so I post this here.
To Michael: I do see what you mean about comparison of technologies to brain and/or universe and how faulty that can be. All good points. This is true.
BUT, I can see nature easily as operating in some sort of "coded" way though. DNA (A, G, C, T) and Qubits (a quantum bit capable of holding more than two values) being two examples. Using a range of values (in a sort of code) to create (or render) a whole bunch of stuff, including us, is probably VERY easy to nature (or whatever this all is) but obviously rather complex for us.
Also (this perhaps for Zetetic chick also), I don't know whether I was clear enough or not in my previous post but I basically was extending the idea of the Matrix to include the "inside and outside." In other words there is ULTIMATELY no such thing as "you" or "me" inside or outside this "place," unlike the Matrix.
This would not mean that the whole shebang here is intelligent. I wouldn't call the myriad ways of killing off life and/or suffering intelligent. It could just mean it IS. Or, if it is intelligent, we could SAFELY assume it exists for itself (again, whatever this may be).
TO Zetetic chick: Good info link.
Why haven't we answered the simple question, "Why anything at all?"
Answer: Because we, as individuals or societies are NOT in control...and I am willing to go so far (take the huge leap) as to say we control absolutely nothing (even as individuals)...past, present or future.
Posted by: Rich | April 01, 2009 at 03:27 PM
I think part of the discussion on Gandzfeld here is product of misunderstandings or misreadings of the comments.
Let's try my interpretation (and I hope don't confuse the topic more, but clarifies it).
Steen's commentary: "I think the 31-33% success rate is achieved when analysing multiple studies with the statistical tool called meta-analysis"
Steen's comment may be read in two ways:
1)The over 30% success rate has been achieved ONLY with meta-analysis. If that's what Steen means, then (as Michael said), it's false, because even without meta-analysis, there have been statistically significant results.
2)Gandzfeld's tests without meta-analysis has, in some cases, get chance results. If it's what Steen wanted to mean, then (as said Vitor), Steen is right.
In some cases, chance results have been achieved, and it's expected because psi, like other human abilities, isn't constant in each case and is susceptible of external and internal influence that affect the performance (like sport players, who have different performances in different days; but they manifest a constant rate that can enable us to say "this is a good player" or "this a bad player")
As said Daryl Bem in the paper quoted by Vitor: "Those who required that a psi effect be statistically significant every time before they will seriously entertain the possibility that an effect really exists know not what they ask" (p.14)
This is why meta-analysis is an important tool, because it enables to detect real effects when you study the results of all the published studies in a combined manner. (Meta-analysis is not perfect; but it doesn't argue against its scientific use. Absolute perfection is not a requeriment of science)
I'd recommend to Steen (and to everybody) a close study of Dean Radin's book "The Conscious Universe", since his technical discussion of meta-analysis, and why it provides compelling evidence for the existence of psi, is a must read. (By the way: when you read Radin's book, you'll understand why most skeptical "reviews" of it are clearly misleading, rhetorical and intentionally misrepresent Dean's points. Don't be fooled by these "reviews". Read the book by yourself.)
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | April 01, 2009 at 04:04 PM
Steen's comment may be read in two ways:
1)The over 30% success rate has been achieved ONLY with meta-analysis. If that's what Steen means, then (as Michael said), it's false
You're right. This is how I interpreted Steen's comment. If he meant it the other way (Ganzfeld tests without meta-analysis have, in some cases, gotten chance results), then I think it's a point not worth making. Of course we are not going to see absolute uniformity of results in any test involving the mental faculties of human subjects. For that matter, we don't see absolute uniformity in pharmaceutical trials, either, because people have different reactions to drugs (in part, I assume, because of their differing psychologies - i.e., some people are prone to hypochondria or to the placebo effect).
If I recall correctly, the highest success rate ever found in a ganzfeld study was obtained when all the test subjects were artists or musicians. This study was conducted on the premise that artistic people are more likely to have strong intuitive abilities. I would bet that if a ganzfeld study were done of people known to have markedly low levels of intuition, the results would be at or near chance. There is no reason to assume that everyone has equal psi abilities, any more than we assume that everyone has equal talent in mathematics or music.
In any event, the great majority of ganzfeld studies, even considered one by one, have yielded results that are well above chance. Look at Vitor's list above. Of 11 studies in that sample, only one was at chance. The other ten were at 30% or higher.
Thus, the often-heard skeptical complaint that the ganzfeld tests yield significant results only when subjected to meta-analysis is simply wrong.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | April 01, 2009 at 04:47 PM
"There is no reason to assume that everyone has equal psi abilities, any more than we assume that everyone has equal talent in mathematics or music."
This is absolutely correct! That's why I'm excited to see the results from the research the folks at UVA plan on doing with people exhibiting extremely unusual psychological phenomena, including psi.
Posted by: Troy | April 01, 2009 at 08:40 PM
“This would not mean that the whole shebang here is intelligent. I wouldn't call the myriad ways of killing off life and/or suffering intelligent”
This is an interesting comment. Now I have been working on just such questions very deeply for 18 years and thinking about such things most of my life. The mystics tell us that all of that suffering was worth it as it developed their consciousness to a point they feel or have felt tremendous bliss. Also often we forget the suffering when joy enters our lives. It appears to be a temporal thing when we look back at it from the other side.
We have to be very careful stating what is intelligent and what is not intelligent. Religions have decided that god must be angry with us and in the Christian religion they needed a sacrificial human lamb to get back in good with god, which from my point of view does not pass the simplest of logic tests. But when we study the history of many religions sacrifice has been a big part of their religious beliefs. By many appearances it does indeed look as if god is upset or even angry with it’s creation but then appearances can be very deceiving.
Also the advanced spirits that come through mediums tell us that though suffering we learn profound lessons about life and with enough experiences become more compassionate, humble, and loving which are attributes of intelligence. This evolution of consciousness approach to developing and maybe creating and manifesting souls does create unique souls even unique snowflakes.
Would our souls even learn without these levels of suffering and killing one another for a variety of reasons? It appears that karma applies to individuals, groups, nations, and indeed the world for all to learn love and intelligence.
I have never read that a mystic or an advanced spirit complain about the suffering they have had to endure to reach the level of understanding they now reside in. Now how can one tell what is and is not an advanced intelligence? Well for me at least their teachings give them away. It took many years of research and study to believe I might be capable of telling the difference between the levels of intelligence these spirits have obtained. Also there is a huge difference between intellectual capability and intelligence.
Posted by: william | April 01, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Folks, In Radin's Entangled Minds (2006) the Ganzfeld hit rate up to that point is given as 32% from 3100 sessions. Since that time there has been several large positive replications (Navarro, Smith, Parra) so the hit rate is probably higher than 32%. There might be a file drawer problem as spotted by Andrew Endersby, and indeed this has triggered some debate between Radin and Endersby: http://amnap.blogspot.com/2007/06/controversy-between-dean-radin-and.html,
but even if you include EVERYTHING (and there are excellent quality and standardisation issues not to) the hit rate falls to 29% over 6000 sessions.....still astronomical odds against chance. So, it really does look like something is happening in the Ganzfeld domain. When you factor in the the effects of personality, creativity, local sideral time, geo-magnetic effects and sender - receiver pairing, the evidence is even stronger.....a lot stronger.
On a different note, I absolutely love this blog Michael, you just approach the subject of psi, afterlife and surrounding issues with the right degree of credulity and intellect......Being a die hard liberal, I'll probably disagree with the political slant of this blog but that's a different argument!
Posted by: Michael Duggan | April 02, 2009 at 12:50 AM
Off-topic but interesting. I came across to this Chris Carter's review of the book "Extraordinary Knowing" by a psychologist skeptical of the paranormal:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_2_70/ai_n24386204/?tag=content;col1
The review was published in the Journal of Parapsychology.
I read that book some time ago (I ordered it after Dean Radin recommended it in his blog), and I think the author was a real skeptic (zetetic). She experienced a psi-like experience, and this challenged her theoretical scientific ideas about the paranormal.
Chris Carter's review explains some of the main points of the book, but I suggest you to order it.
A very nice and informative reading.
Posted by: Zetetic_chick | April 02, 2009 at 07:57 AM
Hey William thanks for your insightful reply to my comment...whether I agree or not it certainly has some food for thought.
Hey Michael P./ALL, this is a bit off topic and perhaps might make a new blog topic on here to comment on. By the way, I haven't looked on this blog enough to see that this has not been commented on before so please excuse me if it has been done before. Also, I am bringing up this topic here, because if it is not junk science (I'm not smart enough to know but it seems ok), it may have some application to what is discussed on this blog. I don't know but here is the link:
http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php
Posted by: Rich | April 02, 2009 at 12:37 PM
I wonder what everyone thinks of this video of experiments in the revival of living organisms. One guy said this was proof that the brain generates consciousness and mind and that their is no soul.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-p-wGIbesMGc/experiments_in_the_revival_of_organisms_1940_pt1/
Posted by: Leo MacDonald | April 03, 2009 at 09:57 AM
Sorry to be off topic again, but after reading much more up on the "electric universe theory," it certainly does not seem to hold any water at all...even with me being not so smart with this stuff.
Posted by: Rich | April 03, 2009 at 09:59 AM
the "electric universe theory," ... certainly does not seem to hold any water at all
Electricity and water don't mix.
Posted by: Barbara | April 03, 2009 at 11:04 AM
"Electricity and water don't mix."
Lol. True, on its face.
Posted by: Rich | April 03, 2009 at 02:24 PM