Michael Prescott's Blog: X marks the spot

Comments

NDE of a soldier?Interesting.
I've read spiritualistic accounts of people dying on the battlefield during world war 2,this case kinda reminds me of them.

Instead when killed people would be acting frantic,running around still thinking they're alive,unable to seperate realities from eachother due to the chaos.

I think it's veridical accounts like these NDE's that best present evidence for consiousness surviving during NDE.Obviously in a more controlled environement.

The AWARE study seems to be doing this along with the targets and much more.
If observations such as these are considered "hits" it would mean the Aware study has much more chance of providing positive results without the need of verifying targets only counted as "hits".

Imagine such details as reported by this NDE could be caught by videocamera's,speech and all.I don't know if the ethical implications would be controversial,but certainly the objectivity of the situation would be improved to avoid the "its just an anecdote debunking".

I imagine the future of NDE research will be pretty interesting.

Posted by: Bryan.A | February 21, 2011 at 03:25 AM

If this guy was able to spot a scar on someone's head then they should be able to spot a playing card as with the AWARE study - X marks the spot!

Then again, scarman was directly involved in the events described above and this is why the man notes his description. You will notice that he is not concerned with the minutae of detail of the suroundings for example, mainly because he has more important concerns.

This is why I think that the AWARE study is not going to prove or disprove anything really.

How many people having a full blown NDE and observing their body in a full arrest situation are going to be distracted enough to be looking at a small playing card somewhere up near the ceiling?

Posted by: Douglas | February 21, 2011 at 07:22 AM

"This is why I think that the AWARE study is not going to prove or disprove anything really."

The AWARE study won't study only how many people managed to see those targets when being clinically dead.

If im not mistaken the AWARE study will also be measuring oxygen levels in the brains of patients during cardiac arrest and considering all parts of the NDE experience.
Not only who did or did not see hidden targets.

The AWARE study supposedly will do much much more as well,and hopefully provide many more "Denture men" and "Pam Reynolds" sort of cases that to me if properly corroberated with good details is pretty sweet evidence.

Posted by: Bryan.A | February 21, 2011 at 07:38 AM

"If this guy was able to spot a scar on someone's head then they should be able to spot a playing card as with the AWARE study - X marks the spot!" - douglas
------------

Some of the NDEs that I've read seem to suggest that the deceased had tunnel vision as they were looking back at their body on the table. Almost like looking through a rifle scope. Perhaps it's designed that way for a reason. Those beings of light on the other side want you to look back on your body and realize you are dead? There is something about knowing you are dead, and that you are out of your body that facilitates the transition to the other side, traveling through the tunnel into the light? It's almost like a formula. Step 1, step 2, step 3, etc.

Even the person who looked back and saw the top of the surgery light and saw that it was dirty was in the process of looking at his/her body and seeing the dust and dirt on top of the surgery light was a by-product of looking back at the body - to bring about something else.

We (the collective "we") are only allowed hints that this life is not all there is and that something else comes after. I believe there is a reason for that. If those beings of light wanted to they could expose the whole process allow everyone to "KNOW" collectively that there is life after death and we survive the death of our physical body. Perhaps that is not part of the plan?

Posted by: Art | February 21, 2011 at 08:02 AM

Art, I don't think looking back at one's body is a feature purposefully designed to instill a lesson or understanding, let alone by beings of light.

I know when I have had OBEs (not NDEs) I have seen my body from a distance as have many others undergoing non-life threatening separation of consciousness and physical body. So your proposed theory of why an NDE would contain this feature doesn't make sense in the case of OBEs, but there it is.

Posted by: no one | February 21, 2011 at 09:01 AM

There are thousands of these cases. If you read it slowly and put yourself in their position you cannot succesfully make the case for it being some kind of brain hallucination.

Posted by: . | February 21, 2011 at 10:45 AM

andrew zimmern's bizarre food/world is one of shows i watch regularly.

i'm particularly affected by one episode where he went to Kalahari and spent time with a remote tribe. at the end of the show, he participated a ritual with them and i found his experience very inspiring and real..

Zimmern's Book excerpt on the experience

read page 232-236....

in all his shows i've watched, he never appeared to be a religious man, but he's always respectful of other culture and beliefs... he would point out things that he thinks it's just pure superstition or phony.. but his experience at the ritual had genuinely changed him- just like how NDE affected people...

Posted by: TomC | February 21, 2011 at 11:36 AM

A whole lot of "ifs" have to be blowing into your sails to make materialistic headway against THAT sort of case, and the fact that there are so MANY such stories makes the voyage harder, not easier.

Posted by: dmduncan | February 21, 2011 at 01:40 PM

To the commentator who commented that these are hallucinations, how could so many people report having the same hallucination? They're not reporting wild, off-the-wall experiences and pink elephants, they're reporting a strikingly similar sequence of events.

Posted by: Kathleen | February 21, 2011 at 04:14 PM

The commentator left this forum after his arguments about Pam Reynolds went up in smoke :)

Posted by: Kris | February 21, 2011 at 06:12 PM

Kathleen
I am not saying I agree with them but a materialist might argue that the reason the 'hallucination' is similar is because we share a common physiology and similar stimuli cause similar effects.

The content of the experience in this case however is what seems to me to be important. The source, nature of the experience and the quality (albeit subjective) of the report itself seem to me to make the OBE/NDE explanation the best fit unless one rejects such an explanation as inherently impossible (as materialists do).

Posted by: Paul | February 21, 2011 at 06:37 PM

One thing I find interesting about NDEs is that almost invariably any communication that takes place in them is described as "telepathic." Even small children will say that people talked without speaking aloud.

It seems most unlikely that this detail would be hardwired into the human psyche, yet it crops up again and again.

Posted by: Michael Prescott | February 21, 2011 at 07:50 PM

"One thing I find interesting about NDEs is that almost invariably any communication that takes place in them is described as "telepathic." Even small children will say that people talked without speaking aloud." - Michael Prescott
------------------------------

It's a holographic universe connectedness and oneness thing. When the soul leaves the body it is connected to the holographic film, the place that our reality, the "holographic projection" or "hologram" is projected from.

Same thing as during the life review literally feeling like they become the other person, feeling their emotions and hearing their thoughts, 360 degree vision, all knowledge, seeing the past, present, and future all at once, communicating by "boluses of information", feeling of connectedness and oneness, literally feeling like they are everywhere in the universe at once, and overwhelming love, etc. The life review is a holographic experience par excellence according to Dr. Ken Ring.

Posted by: Art | February 21, 2011 at 08:18 PM

"One thing I find interesting about NDEs is that almost invariably any communication that takes place in them is described as "telepathic."

Michael, it's a good point to bring up with someone who argues that the NDE is merely a vivid dream. I mean, how often does telepathy substitute for talking in dreams? Not all that commonly, it seems to me.

Another repeating motif in NDE's is how people react when they see themselves for the first time, out-of-body. But shucks, I wrote about that on this blog once before and no one seemed interested. Any takers this time around? :o)

Here's what I said:

"I was just reading an NDE account today (Alexa Hartung) and saw this:

'The next thing I knew I had lifted out of my body and was looking at myself! A bit surprised, I said, "Gee, I don't look so bad!" All my life I had felt large and fat compared to my 5', 100 lb. sister. As I now saw myself, I looked different from what I thought I’d seen in the mirror.'

I've seen that basic idea expressed countless times in NDE accounts. Again and again, people are surprised at how they look when they see themselves for the first time while out of body.

This strikes me as a counter-argument to Susan Blackmore's "mental model" theory. She says that during an NDE, because we have no actual visual input, we "see" an imaginary world based on what we expect to see or have seen before.

Then why are people always surprised at their appearance? And surprised in precisely the way you'd expect them to be, because seeing yourself in 3D is, in fact, different from seeing yourself in the mirror.

Anyway, there's no proof here, but it's a very suggestive piece of evidence I've thought about often. What do you all think?"

So folks, if you don't want to see this here again, now's you're chance to respond. :o)

(After struggling to track down that little tidbit, I finally found it by googling "bruce siegel" "michael prescott" "mental model". Cool how you can do that.)

Posted by: Bruce Siegel | February 21, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Interesting point, Bruce. I don't know if people who visualize themselves using a mental model report being surprised by what they see. It seems counterintuitive that they would.

In addition, many NDErs see themselves in a very debilitated condition - desperately ill, wounded, etc. - and report being surprised at how wasted and forlorn their bodies look. This doesn't seem to fit any preconceived mental model that was presumably built up subconsciously during healthier times.

Posted by: Michael Prescott | February 22, 2011 at 01:52 AM

BTW, you can search this site specifically by using the Google tool at the left side of this screen.

Posted by: Michael Prescott | February 22, 2011 at 01:53 AM

Yes, it’s a good point Bruce. There is very little self-reflexivity in ordinary dreams (but some in lucid dreams). Where NDErs claim the experience to be “more real than everyday life”, they claim a higher level of self-consciousness, though attention is not necessarily directed towards the physical body.

What surprises me is how rarely NDErs or OBErs spend time investigating or describing their new light body. Perhaps this is why Susan Blackmore thinks NDEs and OBEs are primarily mental experiences (whatever that means).

Posted by: Ben | February 22, 2011 at 02:56 AM

"you can search this site specifically by using the Google tool at the left side of this screen."

Thanks. I forgot about that!

Posted by: Bruce Siegel | February 22, 2011 at 03:11 AM

You are pure consciousness and in a holographic universe each part contains the whole and each piece contains all the information of the whole. This is why Mark Horton said he literally felt like he was everywhere in the universe at once. They feel like they are the universe.

That is why there is no body. The physics of the other side is very different from this side. The whole point of this life is to learn what it's like to be in a body, to be separate, what time and space look and feel like, and make memories of what it was like to be limited to a physical body. The only way pure consciousness can know that is if at some point it had experienced it.

Posted by: Art | February 22, 2011 at 08:04 AM

Researchers use virtual-reality avatars to create 'out-of-body' experience

"Volunteers experienced the virtual bodies as if they were their own, with possible applications in computer games or to transport people digitally to other locations"

Posted by: Roger Knights | February 22, 2011 at 08:50 AM

art wrote:
That is why there is no body.

Strange that spirit communicators all say they have a body! They should know as they are living in it.

Posted by: Zerdini | February 22, 2011 at 09:30 AM

Perhaps when the soul first comes out of the physical body it is rather amorphous and undefined but after it has moved into the light it acquires a body? I'm only speculating here you understand. I have no hard and fast beliefs on this point.

Or you have a body if you choose to have a body. Perhaps heaven is ideoplastic and you have whatever body you choose to have? As in "thoughts are things and consciousness creates reality?"

My niece had an ADC dream with her father after he died and in the dream he told her that the body they found wasn't his real body and he was in his real body now.

I had a dream withe my father that I believe was probably an ADC dream and in the dream my deceased father said to me "Guess what Artie? I'm 28!" Which leads me to believe that perhaps when my father was 28 years old that was his "best" time of life? I don't know?

Also Pam Reynold's said that the people she saw looked their best.

"Everyone I saw, looking back on it, fit perfectly into my understanding of what that person looked like at their best during their lives."
http://near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

Posted by: Art | February 22, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Art is right that NDErs very frequently report seeing their deceased loved ones looking young and healthy, "at their best." This poses another problem for the hallucination hypothesis. Why would people necessarily imagine their loved ones this way?

When I think of deceased relatives, I remember them as they looked in their later years, because those memories are the most recent. I would have trouble recalling what they looked like when they were young. It seems unlikely that I would hallucinate young, healthy images of people whom I consciously remember as older and more careworn - people I may not have even known when they were young.

This could make an interesting post - a list of all the (unverifiable, but reasonably consistent) things NDErs report that don't dovetail with the hallucination hypothesis.

Posted by: Michael Prescott | February 22, 2011 at 10:41 AM

The telepathic feature is interesting - it isn't something we ever (well maybe) do, at least consciously, in real life - so why would we do it in and NDE if it was a hallucination or dream - if I have understood the point you are making Michael?

Having said that, in dreams/hallucination folk often report doing things that they don't do in 'real life' though - such as flying unaided or may be convinced they have supernormal powers.

Perhaps the most important element is still the verifiable elements rather than the qualitative nature of the experience?

Posted by: Paul | February 22, 2011 at 11:11 AM

What surprises me is how rarely NDErs or OBErs spend time investigating or describing their new light body.

When I had my NDE, everything seemed so normal, like I was home. I didn't feel like I had become something new and different. I felt like I was going back to normal.

Posted by: Sandy | February 22, 2011 at 11:18 AM

"Perhaps the most important element is still the verifiable elements"

I think the verifiable observations are the most important element, but the other observations are interesting in two respects: a) they show a fair degree of consistency, and b) they are not necessarily what we would expect from hallucinations.

Regarding dreams where we are flying, I sometimes think these may actually be garbled memories of OBEs that occurred during sleep. I admit this could be seen as question-begging, though. (I.e., I'm saying dreams are different from OBEs, and then if someone reports a dream that was similar to an OBE, I say it was "really" an OBE in disguise. Not the greatest logic. But I've had some flying - or more often, floating - dreams, and FWIW they "felt" like OBEs to me.)

Posted by: Michael Prescott | February 22, 2011 at 11:31 AM

The most important element to me is the connection between NDEs and the holographic universe theory. There is also a connection between NDEs and quantum physics.

Posted by: Art | February 22, 2011 at 01:25 PM

The consistency element is interesting, this suggests perhaps that the experience is 'real' in the sense that we are having some kind of experience, though as far as I can see it doesn't clearly identify the nature of it or its source.

If OBEs and dreams are both possible I wonder how we can distinguish between the two other than through verifiable observations? Even then I suppose there are dreams which seem to be clairvoyant or even premonitions, so perhaps there are different types of dream. Curiouser and curiouser yes? :)

My understanding is that hallucinations are something different from dreams though I can't say in what way exactly.

To my layman's eyes, the more I read, the more complex and unfathomable consciousness seems to be unless one accepts a dualistic view of the world.

Posted by: Paul | February 22, 2011 at 02:00 PM

"Regarding dreams where we are flying, I sometimes think these may actually be garbled memories of OBEs that occurred during sleep."

I've had OBE's during sleep,way too many lucid dreams and I can say unlike many people who experience what they do for various reasons I sometimes don't know on which side of the fence to sit.

Some Obe's(during sleep) have aspects so realistic that you want to believe its the afterlife,but other aspects so filled of fantasy that you cannot draw a definite conclusion.

More then once the thought crossed my mind that OBE's(during sleep) and maybe even dreams are a mix of brain activity and leaving the body while this happens.

I've got no evidence,nor proof ofcourse but from my experience I can say the following:

Even the deepest OBE's,lucid dreams have a mixed bag of realistic happenings and unrealistic.Opening doors in the house like you would in real life for instance would not happen presumably if you're a spirit.

But leaving the body during an OBE during sleep feels like literally breaking your spirit apart from the body and stepping out of the body.

I can't draw a conclusion but i'm certainly humpty dumpty.

If OBE's do occur(unconsiously) during sleep the rabbit hole is way way too deep to understand by current science.

Posted by: Bryan.A | February 22, 2011 at 02:24 PM

"What surprises me is how rarely NDErs or OBErs spend time investigating or describing their new light body. "

I made a serious effort to do this while undergoing OBEs. Twice I focussed my will to move in front of a large standing mirror. I experienced tremendous apprehension, but when I forced myself to look into the mirror, I saw nothing other than the ordinary reflection of the room.

On other occassions I consciously tried to look at my "hands" or "feet' - like you would do in ordinary waking life. Again, I saw nothing; even though I had some vague perception that I still possessed the appendages. There was only the ground or air.

However, one time I was in an aggetated frame of mind. A girlfriend and I had begun drifting apart and I wanted the relationship to continue. I sensed she was seeing someone else. This was one time when I elected to use my OBE abilities for sinister purposes. I decided to travel out of body and spy on her. I floated out of body and began to focus on the route to her apartment. I grew more angry by the second and by the time I was half way there, I had become totally out of control irrational; furious. I could see my limbs and they were hairy and I had claws. I had assumed the body of a wolf. I was a werewolf! I was so shocked and horrified by this that it snapped me out of my mission and I had an intense need to stop the experience. Moments later I was back in my body. I experienced a paralysis for a few minutes(?) and then snapped out of it and back into normal waking consciousness; sweating, heart racing and afraid of myself.

That has always made me wonder if the tails of skin walkers and such are not based on some similar form of OBE activity.

Posted by: no one | February 23, 2011 at 05:36 AM

"I had assumed the body of a wolf. I was a werewolf! I was so shocked and horrified by this that it snapped me out of my mission and I had an intense need to stop the experience. Moments later I was back in my body. I experienced a paralysis for a few minutes(?) and then snapped out of it and back into normal waking consciousness; sweating, heart racing and afraid of myself."

What you describe is sleep paralysis.
Sphere or looks changing due to emotion is a typical thing of dreams.Especially where you put your focus on.

OBE's during dreams can be so misleading because they are even MORE lucid then lucid dreams but when you really get into it there are too many irregularities to consider it a real OBE such as during NDE's.

Posted by: Bryan.A | February 23, 2011 at 02:00 PM

I recently had an OBE and I wasn't dreaming. I had been sitting in a chair and crocheting. It suddenly occurred to me that I was not in my body, but looking at the crochet work from a different angle than I should have been able to. I noticed a mistake in the work from that angle that I wouldn't have seen otherwise. It didn't last long and I was back to normal. I found the mistake in the work when I checked for it.

Posted by: Sandy | February 23, 2011 at 02:33 PM

Bryan A. , weird as it sounds, I think the experience was more than just sleep paralysis and ordinary dreaming. I have had a number of OBEs that passed what I like to think is very rigorous testing of 'real' versus dreaming/coincidence/other normal explanation situation. Often an OBE begins with and/or ends with paralysis. In fact, the paralysis state can be a lead in to an OBE if I can relax and overcome the fear that the paralysis causes. I have read about hypnogocic imagery occuring during sleep paralysis. I am not talking about that. I am talking about actual events happening beyond the physical location of my body - and sometimes future events - that I could not possibly have normal knowledge of, but saw and later verified as actually having happened.

Posted by: no one | February 23, 2011 at 06:49 PM

I agree that things are weird in OBE's during sleep.
The reality,your room for instance might look so realistic that it's easy to mistake for reality until you spot the chair thats not on the right place.

Hypnogogic imagery happened before sleep paralysis with me,being able to wild means being able to consiously experience the imagery passing through sleep paralysis and a whole bunch of other feelings when you "seperate from the body".Floating above the body is one thing that also happened with me,but focusing on my body did not reveal an accurate depiction of myself.

After the 1st and 2nd OBE during sleep I had I wanted to believe just like you that it's real because it sure as hell felt like it.

Oh and I also had 1 future vision during one "OBE",text was visible in a dream and I could read a story on paper which happened after a few months.

Still I feel the veridical perception obtained during NDE is way different then OBE's that I read,it does not include the famous combination of white light,tunnel vision,seeying dead relatives or any of the other things.

I would love to see people try out OBE's during sleep and guess digits correctly written somewhere in the room.

In the meanwhile i'll believe it's dreams as numbers and letters are usually changing in dreams and so far that i'm aware no real experiment/study has validated OBE's during dreams are what the word implies.

I may sound like a skeptic all around when I say that,but I accept various other kinds of evidence of parapsychology,i'm just very skeptikal with this particular area due mainly to extensive personal experience.

Posted by: Bryan.A | February 24, 2011 at 06:09 AM

"no real experiment/study has validated OBE's during dreams"

Charles Tart's experiment with Miss Z seems to meet your requirements, though further replication would have made it a stronger case.

http://www.psychwww.com/asc/obe/missz.html

Posted by: Michael Prescott | February 24, 2011 at 09:40 AM

Tnx for the link.
I will certainly check it out.

Posted by: Bryan.A | February 24, 2011 at 12:36 PM

From Life after Death by Karlis Osis, Ph.D., at http://www.aspr.com/osis.html.

"There are cases on record where one or two external observers "see" the person experiencing an OBE as an apparition at the same time as the person experiences himself as visiting the observers (Landau, 1963).
In very rare cases animals also have been reported to react to the OBE apparition. Only experiments with gifted subjects have been suggestive. In one experiment, a kitten in the laboratory was measurably quieter at randomly selected intervals when its master made OBE "visits" (Morris et al, 1978). In another experiment, strain gauge measures in the projection area gave some indications of OBE presence (Osis and McCormick, 1980). Experiments with unselected subjects usually give no indications suggesting that anything "goes out" during OBE."

Refs:
Landau, L. (1963). An unusual out-of-body experience. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 42, 126-28
Morris, R.L., Harary, S.B., Janis, J., Hartwell, J., and Roll, W.G. (1978). Studies in communication during out-of-body experiences. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 72, 1 -22.
Osis, K., and McCormick, D. (1980). Kinetic effects at the ostensible location of an out-of-body projection during perceptual testing. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 74, 319-29

There is some research with EEGs taken during OBEs that seems to show that OBEs are not lucid dreaming (no REM, for instance), but a variety of distinct different states of consciousness, different with different subjects.

Posted by: nbtruthman | February 24, 2011 at 01:25 PM

The Miss Z case is very weak - in fact there is good reasons to believe they cheated.

First, given the structure of the experiment, there were multiple chances for the participant to inadvertently be exposed to the "random" number (even though the chances of that happening are very small). The design would have been stronger if the "random" number were selected by a third party previous to the experiment and if it were placed in a location where it could not be read by either the participant or the researcher. This is called a "double-blind" experiment.

Second, it would be pretty simple to set up a video camera in a room to monitor the participant's movements during the night. This would help to eliminate fears of cheating or peaking.

Third, it's not clear why he didn't try to repeat this experiment to increase it's validity.

Posted by: sbu | February 24, 2011 at 02:44 PM

There was no opportunity for the test subject to see the number unless she glimpsed its reflection in the face of a clock on the wall, a possibility Tart noted, but which is extremely unlikely given that the room was dimly lit and the faint (reversed) reflection could be seen only when the note was strongly illuminated.

Tart didn't follow up because Miss Z moved out of state. She seems also to have been unenthusiastic about continuing as a subject.

Video cameras were a lot harder to come by in those days than they are now. Such equipment was expensive, unwieldy, and required technical proficiency to use.

If by "they cheated," you mean Tart, then say so outright and provide evidence. Tart has never been seriously accused of fraud at any time in his long career. I'm frankly tired of armchair skeptics making libelous accusations without a shred of proof.

Posted by: Michael Prescott | February 24, 2011 at 03:23 PM

Just to add some detail to my last comment, I'd note that the Miss Z experiments were conducted in the mid 1960s and were published in 1968. Video equipment was hard to obtain in those days, and since the lab was kept dark so Miss Z could sleep, a camera wouldn't have shown anything anyway, unless infrared gear was used - and that was even rarer.

Moreover, it is simply untrue that Miss Z had opportunities to see the number surreptitiously. Tart did not choose the number until after Miss Z was in bed, hooked up to the EEG machine. He selected it in another room, wrote it down, placed it in an opaque envelope, and only slipped it out of the envelope when he put it in an inaccessible location in the lab. Miss Z could not get up to look at the note because she would have had to disengage from the EEG, and this interruption would have shown up on the printout. (This also negates any possible need for a video camera, as the EEG alone would have been enough to detect any walkabout on Miss Z's part.)

I have no idea why you put the word random in quotes, as if to suggest that the number was not really random. Tart selected it by opening a book of random numbers and arbitrarily picking whatever number his finger landed on. That was the normal procedure for picking a random number in the days before random number generators. He selected a different number each time, of course.

Finally, double blind procedures are well known in parapsychology. In fact, they were actually pioneered by parapsychologists. But a double blind procedure in this case would have served no purpose, unless you think Tart was imbecilic enough to blurt out the number while placing it in the lab.

Posted by: Michael Prescott | February 24, 2011 at 03:43 PM

I do wonder about the telepathic communication thing being prevalent in NDEs, I think speech is the most natural way of communication between human beings and anything else would be hard to imagine. When I dream at night, this has been the only way I've communicated with people, but the way NDE'ers describe telepathic communication seems almost beyond the human condition, there is no speech (you aren't even imagining people talking I assume) and is instantaneous. For a short phrase, I could see that but a longer "conversation" or one with complex concepts would just blow my mind, especially if you instantly "knew".

Posted by: Aftrbrnr | February 24, 2011 at 04:47 PM

Bryan, I agree that OBEs during sleep or induced during sleep paralysis can have some murky unreal dream like features. However, they also can have some pure real psychic features as well. I have often wondered what the connection is.

I believe the sleep paralysis state can be the door to psychic experiences. You will have to take my word for this and assume that I have better things to do with my time than sit around misleading people on a sincere blog like this one.

One of the experiences that convinced me of the realness of the this sort of thing took place many years ago (in the early '80s). I was in sleep paralysis and I'd thought I'd attempt to launch an OBE. Instead of the usual separation sensations I thought I had just woken up because the phone starting ringing. I thought I got up out of bed and answered the phone. I said "hello". There was a woman with a thick African American accent asking, in a somewhat panicked sounding voice, if "William" was there. I replied that she had the wrong number. She said she was sorry and hung up.

A moment later I found myself back in bed. I realized that I had not been awake and that there had not been a phone call. Just then the phone started ringing. Fully awake I got up and answered the phone.....and yep.....it was the same woman, same accent, same tone, asking for "Bill" (slight nuanced difference).

Now I was in college in Tucson, AZ and didn't have any AF friends. There really weren't many in the entire town, the dominant minority being Hispanic. My name is not Bill/William. rarely received phone calls from anyone accept my parents once in a blue moon and my girl friend. Other than my girlfriend (not AF), I maybe got a call once every two weeks. Friends and I usually just met up in informal ways at locations around campus. I can't remember ever getting another wrong number call in the three or four years I had that number and at that point I had had that number for at least two years. This was before phone solicitation became ubiquitous. I didn't hand out my phone number to people because that was not how I did things socially.

The number of correlations - exact matches/hits actually - between the OBE and the actual call are too great to write off as mere coincidence. I mean, it could be an extremely low probability coincidence, but combined with several other similar experiences of the same nature, I became a believer in the psi explanation.

At any rate, I didn't mean to divert the conversation, but just seeking to lend some credibility to my statement made earlier that I was never able to "see" my astral body except one time when I was angry and it, apparently, took the form of a wolf (which is as embarassing as it was personally disturbing and I offer here as part of the puzzle that we are all seeking to understand).

Posted by: no one | February 24, 2011 at 07:49 PM

Aftrbrnr, telepathic communication happens in OBEs too. When I have experienced it, it is more of a knowing than an actual conversation in which things have to be spelled out in a logical progression. It's like a direct connection to the truth that is contained in - or that is - another being. It's a whole different processing mechanism.

High doses of psychedelic drugs can also produce this effect, though I won't go any further into that particular topic out of respect to our host's sensibilities concerning it.

Words at best dance around reality. They are never actually it. If you had never tasted ice cream we could talk about it all day long and you would develop a concept of what ice cream is like without ever really understanding. However, if I took you to an ice cream parlor and sat you down with 31 flavors in front of and a spoon and let you dig in, you would understand ice cream fully within a matter of minutes. The brain, particularly in our modern information age, as a filter tool designed to maximize physical survival potential, relies on words to process input. The soul doesn't haven't a brain, filters less, and obtains information through a more efficient direct access method (that I don't understand enough to elaborate on).

Posted by: no one | February 24, 2011 at 08:14 PM

""I got up and answered the phone.....and yep.....it was the same woman""

Thanks for sharing this experience, no one. Precognition through dreams is one of my favorite topics, and yours is a great example.

I was what you might call a militant skeptic before I began reading about NDE's around 1990. Gradually, I began to open to the possibility of psychic phenomena, but a for a few years, I straddled the fence, not sure if all the stuff I was reading about was valid or just wishful thinking.

One evening, on a TV show, I saw a virtual replay of a quirky, vivid dream I had had the night before. Happily, I had taken the time to record the dream as soon as I woke up, because I was beginning to suspect that I was, in fact, having precognitive dreams.

That was a turning point for me, and I knew that I had just passed the "maybe yes, maybe no" point. From that point on, if I had to bet my money on whether or not psychic phenomena were real, I knew I had to go with a yes.

So I love to have these dreams, and I love to hear about them. Over the years, they've helped me to know that the universe is more mysterious and beautiful than the reductionists would have us believe.

And by the way, the particular sequence of events you just described is a very familiar one to me: the last dream I have before waking often presages something I will see or read moments later.

Posted by: Bruce Siegel | February 24, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Interesting comments on this thread!
Regarding the idea of an astral body (referring to posts by by Bryan A, no one, Sandy & nbtruthman):
I can certainly imagine that in an OBE you ‘undress’ from your body, but can dress up (eg as a wolfman!) depending on emotional state or expectation. So far so good. Hard, though, to escape the belief that the conscious experiencer must retain some sort of real, objective (albeit malleable) form -how can there be coherent identity without it?

During an OBE, when looking in a mirror, are we looking in a physical mirror or an astral mirror? If a physical mirror, we see nothing physical… if an astral mirror..?

Perhaps the form in an OBE can only manifest as an apparition at best because the main current vehicle (the physical body) is still alive and in bed?

Posted by: Ben | February 25, 2011 at 02:31 AM

"Bryan, I agree that OBEs during sleep or induced during sleep paralysis can have some murky unreal dream like features. However, they also can have some pure real psychic features as well. I have often wondered what the connection is."

One of the thoughts I had was just like yours.
Especially because in 1 OBE I also saw the future like you.

It's that connection that you mention that I believe is the key to understanding the phenomena.

Perhaps experiencing OBE ( during sleep) with brainactivity is what keeps us from experiencing OBE's like people that experience NDE's(without brainactivity) do and make them more similar to some NDE's that is filled with "fantasy" "dream" happenings.Not to say they're the same,just comparing the phenomena.

Posted by: Bryan | February 25, 2011 at 03:40 AM

"Perhaps experiencing OBE ( during sleep) with brainactivity is what keeps us from experiencing OBE's like people that experience NDE's(without brainactivity) do and make them more similar to some NDE's that is filled with "fantasy" "dream" happenings.Not to say they're the same,just comparing the phenomena."

I like that idea. I think there may be something to it!

Thanks for the appreciation, Bruce.

Posted by: no one | February 25, 2011 at 05:36 AM

Bernard Madoff was also a very respected individual until it was realised his entire investment business was one big fraud.

I have no evidence that Tart cheated, but since nobody has been able to reproduce his experiment a healthy sceptical thought is that the Miss Z thing didn't happen. It's very common every year at universities around the world scientists are caught cheating with their research.

The examples are numerous, a few examples are:

Jan Hendrik Schön, researcher at Bell Labs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal

Steven A. Leadon researcher at University of North Carolina, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_A._Leadon

Victor Ninov, researcher at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Ninov

The list goes on and on. There is a great pressure on scientists to produce scientific results - that's actually how they earn their pay. It's difficult to explain you spent 10 years researching something and then in the end you discovered nothing to report on at all.

Posted by: sbu | February 25, 2011 at 10:56 AM

"I have no evidence that Tart cheated, but since nobody has been able to reproduce his experiment a healthy sceptical thought is that the Miss Z thing didn't happen."

Sbu, I don't claim to know about the validity of Tart's experiment, or whether or not it has been replicated. (Though I have read some of Tart's writing and have never had the slightest reason to doubt his integrity.)

But the essence of his experiment is this: it focuses on the ability to retrieve information without the use of the physical senses. And the evidence for that, both in and out of the lab, is vast and compelling.

Posted by: Bruce Siegel | February 25, 2011 at 12:31 PM

ut the essence of his experiment is this: it focuses on the ability to retrieve information without the use of the physical senses. And the evidence for that, both in and out of the lab, is vast and compelling.

It's a subjective evaluation if it's compelling or not. It's one of those things that isn't black or white - otherwise it would be obviosuly for anyone to see.

Posted by: sbu | February 25, 2011 at 01:31 PM

"I have no evidence that Tart cheated"

Then don't say it.

Suppose I said: "Barack Obama is a serial adulterer and is hooked on cocaine." Do I have any evidence? Not a jot. But other politicians have had affairs and have used drugs; the profession of politics attracts Type A personalities who take risks and break the rules. So it *could* be true, couldn't it? Heck, Obama could be a transvestite too. Prove he isn't!

I'm sure you see how irresponsible this is.

"nobody has been able to reproduce his experiment"

No one has reproduced that exact experiment, as far as I know, but as Bruce points out, similar experiments have been done many times, with positive results. Remote viewing, the ganzfeld, Rhine's card-guessing tests, etc., etc.

"It's a subjective evaluation if it's compelling or not."

No, the statistics are not subjective. When positive results are obtained with odds against chance that are astronomical, we are not in the realm of subjectivity.

The question I would ask is, Why does psi trouble you so much, to the point where you will libel the researchers? What's so awful about the idea that mind and physical reality interact in subtle ways? Do you worry that this awareness will undermine science and lead to a new Dark Age, or provide aid and comfort to religion, or open the door to mind control? There must be something about it that both fascinates and repels you.

I'm not trying to be confrontational. I would like to know what troubles you (and yet intrigues you) about this area of study.

Posted by: Michael Prescott | February 25, 2011 at 02:41 PM

I think it would be helpful if Bruce would also share why he was a "militant skeptic" at one stage in his life; if that that would be ok. Bruce seems like a thoughtful and reasonable man. Maybe there are points in common with what once motivated his militancy and with what is driving SBU. I am assuming that militancy implies a certain focus or fascination.

Hope you don't mind bruce. Thanks.

Posted by: no one | February 25, 2011 at 03:40 PM

OT, but you should check this out: http://chronicle.com/article/Ted-SeriosPsychic/126388/

The CHE writes about Ted Serious, and the Randi-bots come out in force...

Posted by: jimbo | February 25, 2011 at 05:55 PM

"I think it would be helpful if Bruce would also share why he was a "militant skeptic" . . . I am assuming that militancy implies a certain focus or fascination."

Happy to oblige, no one. (Your screen name does make for some weird sentences.) It'll be fun to explain this as clearly as I can.

When I use the word militant, I don't mean anything as benign as fascination—I mean hostile, as in "up in arms." Because that's how I'd get when someone would bring up the subject of psychic phenomena.

To understand why, you need to know that back in 1972, I became deeply involved with a form of psychotherapy know as primal therapy. It's one of the most important things I've ever done. I re-connected with my emotional life and began to cry, express anger, and feel my fear rather than act it out in crazy ways.

In short, I began to feel human.

I'm grateful for primal therapy, and it's important to me to this day.

But I also had to get BEYOND the therapy, which meant that I had to give up the belief that its founder, Arthur Janov, had all the answers.

And one of Janov's "answers" is the idea that spirituality is nothing more than a defense again feeling pain. He says that to the extent that you still believe in God, you're still neurotic, still trying to get from an imaginary parent what you could never get from your real parents.

Can you see why I felt threatened by the possibility of psi and a spiritual realm? If Janov was wrong about something as important as that, then he was no longer the all-knowing guru, and I was no longer saved.

The good news is that because of the 25-year spell I was in, I feel like I have some understanding of fundamentalists of all stripes, be they Taliban, or bible-thumpers, or science worshippers.

I've learned, for one thing, that it's not so easy to recognize the box you're in while you're still in it. It gets to be so familiar that it's all but invisible. I'm sure you all know the story of the student fish who says to the philosopher fish, "What's this 'ocean' you keep talking about?"

Posted by: Bruce Siegel | February 25, 2011 at 07:44 PM

"...Can you see why I felt threatened by the possibility of psi and a spiritual realm? If Janov was wrong about something as important as that, then he was no longer the all-knowing guru, and I was no longer saved...."

Thanks, Bruce. Your story reminds me of my own break with christianity. I was around 15 years old +/- and had been deeply involved in the church since I was a small child and very certain that my immortal soul was saved only through my committment to christ. We had a number of members of the congregation that were involved in global missionary work and I thought I would like to devote my life to this kind of work. So I began talking to these people and learning about the various heathen religions they encountered in their travels.

For some reason I became fixated on the exotic (to me at the time ) sprititual systems of the far East. I wanted to better understand what sort of foolishness I'd be up against in my struggle to bring lost souls to salvation. I read everything I could find in libraries. I became particularly interested in 'debunking' buddhism. However, somewhere along the way, I began to appreciate that these systems made sense in a powerfully resonate way and that they really didn't contain the sinister deceits that I had been led to understand they did; that if a person lived by these tennets they would be a 'good' person just as much as any christian. I also came to realize that a heck of a lot of people lived by these systems and not christianity.

The final break came when I was discussing my research with my pastor. My question was why a loving god would create billions of souls who, prior to only the most recent times of global travel and mass media, could only be doomed to enternity in hell simply because there was no way they could possibly have heard of christ and thus have the opportunity to be saved; and this despite adhering to belief system that would result in an otherwise (meaning but for christ) similar kind of spiritual perspective.

My question was sincere. I was still convinced of the correctness of christianity at that very point (I am always getting in trouble that way....asking the logical, but tough questions...my bosses have always hated me for it). Needless to say, the answer was not satisfying.

It's a hard hard thing to accept that one exists in a mystery and that one doesn't have - and never will - all the answers, but the alternative is the ultimate neurosis.

Posted by: no one | February 26, 2011 at 01:42 AM

My study of the paranormal has increased my Christian faith. I have seen nothing in mys studies that conflicted with the beliefs of the Catholic church, to which I belong. Fundamentalists have their place in religion, but as I have read the ancient wisdom teachers of Christianity, I have found that salvation is union with God, not escaping the fires of a tormenting hell. Many give up on faith with out ever experiencing it. I feel the presenece of God, I see Him in the world, His spirit. The psi phenomenon is an echo, a shadow of Him.

Posted by: mario | February 26, 2011 at 09:20 AM

God certainly isn't some reaction to lost parents or a neurosis. God is a necessary being, an intelligence that organizes the multiverse. He is our father in the sense that we derive our being from Him. From His mind came existance, it expands and evolves eternally according to the nature given it. The mind is the highest creation, the most complex expression of the divine in creation. It reflects the eternal creator, it is made in His image.

Posted by: mario | February 26, 2011 at 09:36 AM

Mario, what about all the silly religious trappings that go along with being Catholic? Will you burn in hell for using a condom? Will I burn in hell for being an unbaptised heathen?

When I had my NDE, I didn't go to hell. There wasn't some old guy sitting on a cloud waiting for me either. My Grandmother was there. So was my dog who was killed in the accident with me. They were both unrepentant heathens too. So obviously the church doesn't have all the answers to how this works.

Posted by: Sandy | February 26, 2011 at 10:03 AM

That is all well and good, mario. However, the christian church(es) also teach that jesus of the new testament was The Christ and, as such, not only the One and Only True Son of God, but also the One and Only Way To Salvation. According to christian doctrine, anyone who does not accept this as fact, repent his sins in the name of christ and place faith in that act leading to salvation, is doomed to burn in hell for all eternity; this latter unfortunate class would include each and every human being that lived by Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Jewish, Shamanistic/Tribal Systems, etc, etc since the dawn of history, through current and into perpetuity.

Does it sound even remotely plausible that the god whose presence you feel would cast into hell, for all eternity, hundreds of millions (probably billions) of souls even when they had no opportunity to ever even hear about the new testament jesus, let alone be educated thoroughly in that belief? Because, again, that is - whether or not you want to address it - what christianity teaches.

True, there are other fundemental teachings as well; like agape and forgiveness. Yet, you can't just pick and chose those parts of the doctine you like and discard the others and still be a christian. You could be something else - perhaps something unique - that incorporates aspects of christian belief into his understanding, but not a christian in the strict sense.

Posted by: no one | February 26, 2011 at 10:11 AM

"Yet, you can't just pick and chose those parts of the doctine you like and discard the others and still be a christian." - No One
--------------------------------------------

Yes you can. I've been doing it for years. Works for me! I'm a Christian, Taoist, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Animist, Wiccan, Neopagan, Sikh, NDE & death bed vision, holographic universe and quantum physics believer. Depends on what day of the week it is and how I'm feeling that day!

I think all that extra stuff in Christianity was added in later because early Christians were so pissed off at the skeptic unbelievers that when they got into arguments about whether Jesus had really died on the cross, gone to heaven, and come back from the dead (sound familiar?) they put a curse on the atheist unbelievers telling them when they died they were going to go to hell and burn forever.

I'm fairly certain that Jesus was a near death experiencer and Christianity is basically a near death experience religion and a matrix or mandala of a whole bunch of other religions that were common during the first Century. The New Testament is an out of sequence and high embellished story about a near death experience of a little Jewish Rabbi who was crucified and poked in the side which hit his pericardium releasing the fluid around his heart, and whoever prepared him for burial bound his wounds, and he lay there in a coma for three days and after three days he walked out and talked about his very deep and profound near death experience.

You know how angry we get with the present day skeptical materialist unbelievers when they come around? I'm betting the same thing happened in the first century so early believers would get in big arguments and the believers got so disgusted with arguing with unbelievers they'd just tell the skeptics that they were going to hell. {grin!}

Posted by: Art | February 26, 2011 at 12:11 PM

Sandy and no one, I share with both of you a distaste for religion. But Mario, it seems to me, is speaking of his affinity to the mystical roots of Christianity rather than its later dogma-encrusted form.

In your posts, you both reject the notion that sinners will burn in hell, but isn't Mario saying the same thing when he says: ". . . as I have read the ancient wisdom teachers of Christianity, I have found that salvation is union with God, not escaping the fires of a tormenting hell."

What say you Mario—am I reading you correctly?

Posted by: Bruce Siegel | February 26, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Bruce & Art, I understand you both.....and I guess I understand mario as well; if he is saying what you think he is (calling mario).
My own view point is similar. I think christ is a metaphor for each and everyone of us; our potential. If actually an historic person, he was one who achieved a high level of spiritual consciousness and, thus, serves as an example, again, of our own potential.

That being said, I think you guys are redefining christianity in order to encompass these ideas. If you took our perspective into any formal church of any denomination and explained it, you would not gain acceptance. You'd probably be seen as confused at best, heretical or possessed by satan at worst. I know. I've tried it. I suppose there are a few fringe churches scattered here and there that are more mystical and accepting, but they are far from mainstream christianity.

Posted by: no one | February 26, 2011 at 01:30 PM

"If you took our perspective into any formal church of any denomination and explained it, you would not gain acceptance." - no one
-----------------------

LOL! That's an understatement! Now you want to know what is hilarously funny? I have been attending a fundamentalist Church of Christ with my wife and her family for the last 37 years! I married into it. I was raised Lutheran. I really like our Preacher. He's a smart guy. Has a Master's degree in Religion and is really easy and interesting to listen to. He just got finished with a series of sermons on where and how we got the bible. The history of the bible. It was actually sort of interesting. I didn't find it difficult (no squirming in my seat) to listen to. Anyway it's mostly social for me. If it wasn't for going to church, since I am retired, I wouldn't get hardly any social interaction besides seeing my wife when she gets home from work. I like to sing and I don't mind praying and our preacher is a really decent humble guy and we have church dinners and I like to socialize with all the other old geezers before and after church so it's okay. I've actually lent some of my near death experience and death bed vision books to some of the ladies at church. By the way our preacher has been exposed to the holographic universe theory. There is another kid at church that is really smart and he had read Talbot's book and told the preacher about it and then when I showed up I talked about it some. I know what to say and what not to say.

Posted by: Art | February 26, 2011 at 02:18 PM

"I like to sing and I don't mind praying and our preacher is a really decent humble guy and we have church dinners and I like to socialize with all the other old geezers before and after church so it's okay."

Sounds nice, Art! I could use something like that myself.

"I think you guys are redefining christianity in order to encompass these ideas."

Nope—just pointing out (as I think Mario may have been doing) that the earliest followers of Christ seem to have been on to something good.

But I hear your frustration at not being able to find a spiritual home in the churches you've attended. I guess that's one of the reasons heretics like us hang out on blogs like this and talk about this stuff.

Welcome to Prescott's Church of the Perennial Philosophy.

Sorry, Michael. :o) I trust you're not too deeply offended by my linking your name with the term popularized by Aldous Huxley? All those P's were hard to resist.

Posted by: Bruce Siegel | February 26, 2011 at 03:21 PM

LOL!

Posted by: no one | February 26, 2011 at 03:34 PM

I don't see this example as a valid analogy. With your reasoning it wouldn't even be possible to put a questionmark to whether Dante Alighieri really went to heaven and hell. As Sagan said, Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence! I find it highly suspect that veridical perception during OBE's haven't been replicated since 1968 and obviously other sceptics thinks the same (by googling on the subject).

Not really. In fact subjectivity is quite a factor in statistics which is well described in the litterature. It's actually a hot topic how to make statistics as objective as possible, e.g. by applying baysian statistics rather than traditional fisherian.

Another problem with studies is psi is when evaluating the 'psi effect' you have to apply meta analysis because some studies shows positive results while other studies comes out negative. This makes psi studies subject to the file drawer problem which I believe is the reason why some published meta analysis of psi studies shows above positive results while others comes out negative. Subjectivity is involved all the way and hence this research can't at the moment be classified as hard science.

In fact I don't side with either the believers or the non-believers on the subject. I'm open to the idea that psi might exist but not convinced.

Do you worry that this awareness will undermine science and lead to a new Dark Age, or provide aid and comfort to religion, or open the door to mind control? There must be something about it that both fascinates and repels you.

You will probably not believe me - but my motivation for spending time on the "life efter death subject" is because I'm scared shitless by the thought of dying means annihilation - the end of consciousness. I really really want an afterlife to exist and hope that I someday will come by some evidence that 100% will convince me. This is why I'm challenging some thoughts and debaters here - at the end of the day I hope the response I get back is something new and refreshing that will bring me an inch later to absolut confidence about life after death.

As it's your blog I will accept if you want me to stay out of the discussion.

Posted by: sbu | February 26, 2011 at 04:37 PM

"I'm scared shitless by the thought of dying means annihilation - the end of consciousness. I really really want an afterlife to exist"

Thanks for your honesty, sbu. It's a great starting place.

Thinking about how to reply, I just had an interesting realization. I was about to say something like, "Well, imagine the worst. Suppose your consciousness does end when your body dies. Would that be so terrible? Wouldn't that be the same state of affairs as before you were born? For aeons you simply didn't exist (to the best of your knowledge), and that wasn't so bad, was it?"

That's an approach I used to use myself, many years ago, when, like you, I was terrified of death.

But as I thought of that scenario now, I realized that it no longer satisfies me. And here's the interesting part. It's not because I dread the non-existence after death—I mean, what's to dread?—but because it would rob the rest of THIS life of much of its meaning.

I've said this here before—I think that what gives this life its meaning is the Story we understand ourselves to be living. And ever since I opened to a spiritual reality about twenty years ago, my Story has become so much easier to relish.

For example, I no longer feel that it's a tragedy that I've never married or had kids. As I see it now, that's for OTHER lives. This life has a different set of lessons and adventures for me to tackle/enjoy/experience/learn from.

I also love the idea that each of us is a split-off piece of God in the process of re-discovering who and what we really are. It gives me a completely different perspective on myself and others. It makes it so much easier to accept and love what I see in people, despite all our apparent faults.

So yes—I can tolerate the notion of infinite nothingness after I die. But now that I've had a taste of a better Story, I don't think I could live the rest of this lifetime with a lesser one.

Anyway, this is MY insight, and not much help to you, I fear.

I don't know how old you are, sbu, but it wasn't till I was about 44 or so that I opened to the possibility of survival. So many things have contributed to my new understanding that it would take a long time to explain it all.

But I'll say this—I doubt that you'll be able to assuage your fear by finding the perfectly replicated psi experiment, though stuff like that can be a real mind-opener, and help set the stage for other forms of validation.

Again—your simple honesty in admitting your fear is a GREAT start.

Posted by: Bruce Siegel | February 26, 2011 at 06:17 PM

".... really really want an afterlife to exist and hope that I someday will come by some evidence that 100% will convince me. "

I was going to write something along the lines of what Bruce just did. So I'll look at a different facet of your response to MP, sbu.

What are you 100% sure of?

I guess I am thinking of how I get through life, but if I waited until I was 100% convinced of the certainty of being "right" or "safe", I'd probably never get out of bed - and then I'd be a nervous wreck wondering if staying in bed was the right move ;-)

I'm sure that you are like most people; including myself. You look at the evidence, weigh the facts, assess your feelings, make a best guess and then act on it. You play the odds and the information available in calculating those odds is always less than optimal.

You are never acting on 100% certainty and yet you act all the same; sometimes, no doubt, in very life changing ways. So why apply that high bar to this one aspect of life?

We have, after all, a veteran (the original topic) like so many others descibing, in apparent sincerity, consciousness separate from the physical body.

Posted by: no one | February 26, 2011 at 06:50 PM

"But I hear your frustration at not being able to find a spiritual home in the churches you've attended." - bruce
----------------

Every message board I've participated on on the internet has been a hotbed of duality and separation. The only reason people at church don't argue and disagree is because it's socially unacceptable. I'm fairly certain that no church encompasses my crazy beliefs.
____________________________________________

"I really really want an afterlife to exist and hope that I someday will come by some evidence that 100% will convince me. This is why I'm challenging some thoughts and debaters here - at the end of the day I hope the response I get back is something new and refreshing that will bring me an inch later to absolut confidence about life after death." - sbu
-------------------------

I'm really sorry but I don't believe that is ever going to happen. I think it's in the "not being certain" that the lessons are learned. If we knew absolutely 100% for sure that there was life after death we might not mourn quite as much when one of our loved ones dies and death would cease to be the powerful lesson in what it means and how it feels to be separate - which I think has a whole lot to do with "why we are here."

In a holographic piece of film (which is what I believe the other side or heaven is) there would be an overwhelming feeling of oneness and connectedness because all the information is spread throughout the entire film. Each piece contains the whole. Another words it might be impossible to know or understand what it means to be separate in heaven just because of the physics of the place we call "heaven".

If you want to be a separate unique individual you have to spend some time on this side, the "projection" in order to learn what it means and how it feels to be separate. This life is one big long lesson in separation, from the moment you are born and separate from your mother till the day you die and your death becomes a lesson in separation to the loved ones you leave behind.

So I'm sorry, but being 100% for certain isn't part of the lesson plan. There will always be a certain inherent degree of uncertainity.

Posted by: Art | February 26, 2011 at 07:58 PM

I think no one and Bruce answered sbu way better than I could have. I especially agree with the idea that no experiment in a lab, no matter how well done, will convince you 100%. It's a very personal journey, an understanding of not just the literature but of yourself.

That being said, I still think it is important to support efforts at investigating psi phenomenon. Twice now I've taken a long bus trip to a university in northern Ontario, Canada just to be hooked up to machines for a couple of days. I've filled out questionnaires. Taken tests to show researchers how my brain functions. And I've shared a lot of very personal details about my life.

Why do all that? Because I know I'm going to survive. My NDE gave me that gift. But I can't just pass it around to help others. All I can do is participate in research and hope that somehow that helps someone else make their own journey.

Posted by: Sandy | February 26, 2011 at 08:20 PM

"If we knew absolutely 100% for sure that there was life after death we might not mourn quite as much when one of our loved ones dies and death would cease to be the powerful lesson in what it means and how it feels to be separate - which I think has a whole lot to do with "why we are here."

Art based on the info that comes through most mediums i'd disagree.Putting NDE's aside ,with most seances regardless if most are fraudulent,"spirits" try their best to convince people that their loved ones still exist in another plane of reality,to ease the mourning.

As for the how's and what's of "heaven" we can all speculate using different sources.
Be it mediums,NDE research..holographic universe theory and who knows who of us got it right since we can't verify that part objectively just yet.My opinion is though that from your viewpoint and others that everyone here has pieces of the puzzle,but not the complete picture just yet.

Posted by: Bryan | February 26, 2011 at 08:25 PM

Sorry for the doublepost but new interview over at skeptiko which should fit with the OP:

Dr James Fetzer On survival.

http://www.skeptiko.com/james-fetzer-survival-of-consciousness-nde/

Posted by: Bryan | February 26, 2011 at 08:29 PM

"Art based on the info that comes through most mediums i'd disagree." - Bryan
---------------

I had a transcendental experience back when I lived on Possum Valley Road in East Tennessee and all the information was instantly downloaded as a "bolus" of information as I walked from our kitchen into our living room. It was like a brilliant flash of insight.

Another words, I have a high degree of confidence that I am right. We'll see when we get there if I am. Besides which I think a lot of the stuff that comes through mediums is mixed up with their own beliefs and preconceived ideas. Influenced by the culture they live in, etc.

Just like the monks that transcribed the original copies of the stories in the New Testament. They thought they were making it more understandable but what they were actually doing was adding in their own personal beliefs. They just couldn't fathom a God that was so smart that He or She was able to create a Universe where we learn what we are supposed to learn whether we want to or not. A world where the lessons are embedded in our every day lives and we learn them whether we want to or not.

It's called Holistic learning and it's the way that little kids learn before they ever start to school. It's the way that children in primitive societies learned just by living their lives.

Posted by: Art | February 26, 2011 at 09:15 PM

sbu,
The evidence from NDE's, DBV's, spirit mediumship etc is very compelling. Not conclusive yet... but can you not 'jump' that little extra bit and have enough confidence in what these 'experiencers' and researchers are telling us ?

Even if the Aware Study produces some hits, there are still going to be the doubters who will say it's not so, the methodology was flawed or someone cheated etc.
Rather, read or listen to the experiencers reports and the effect it had on them along with their interpretation of the event. Because that would likely be 'your' interpretation also, if you had one of these experiences.

Posted by: . | February 27, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Thanks for your answer, sbu. It was very interesting and helpful. I'm not at all suggesting you should not be part of the discussion. I value your comments. The only thing I would ask is that you not accuse people of "cheating" when there's no evidence for it. I think that's unfair, and it's what got me ticked off in the first place.

You may have noticed that I also chide people for saying that skeptics are "lying" about the evidence.

Regarding the fact that the Miss Z experiment hasn't been replicated, one thing to keep in mind is that there are very, very few psi researchers. There are probably fewer than 25 full-time parapsychologists worldwide. Their funding is minimal. There are many experiments they would like to do, if they had the money and staff. Frankly I think what they've accomplished is amazing, given the paucity of resources.

The file-drawer problem has, I think, been adequately addressed by Dean Radin. See his book The Conscious Universe. Also note that the sheer number of experiments with null results would have to be quite large, and again, there just aren't enough researchers to carry out all that work.

I know a little (very little) about the Bayesian controversy, but some of the psi results show odds against chance that are astronomical and can't be revised away. Again, see Radin. You might like his blog; Google it.

As far as fear of personal extinction is concerned (and thank you for being so honest about it), I think there are two ways of dealing with it. The first is to become persuaded of life after death, obviously. The second (less obvious) way, is to become aware of the difference between the ego and what we might call the higher self. I'm not claiming to have accomplished this in full by any means, but I've made some progress toward it, and as I do, I find that my fear of extinction (which is ego-based and is really a fear of losing the ego) simply drops away.

I'm pretty sure there is some kind of afterlife, but not 100% certain. So there is doubt. However, I find that the prospect of extinction doesn't trouble me the way it once did. If the ego with all its silliness and pettiness and artificiality is extinguished, so what? It doesn't seem like much of a loss.

I admit this comes across as vague and unconvincing when you read it, but it really does seem to be true that as identification with the ego diminishes (even a little bit), fear of personal extinction abates also. I found Eckhart Tolle's books useful in this respect. I don't buy into his entire philosophy, and lately he has unfortunately become something of an Oprah-style celebrity, but he does have a knack for explaining this stuff in very clear terms.

Posted by: Michael Prescott | February 27, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Additional thought: I suspect that if there is an afterlife, the ego is largely absent from it. So from an ego perspective, it is perfectly logical to expect personal extinction, because the ego probably *will* be extinguished! What persists is, I think, more akin to the unconscious or what might be more accurately called the superconscious, which includes the subconscious as well as the higher self. F.W.H. Myers called this whole package "the subliminal self."

It's probably not a coincidence that channeling, ESP, etc. seem to operate through the unconscious, or that NDEs, OBEs, etc. often have the dreamlike quality associated with the unconscious mind. The ego/conscious mind seems to be connected primarily with the left cerebral hemisphere, while psi, NDEs, and other such phenomena seem connected with the right hemisphere.

Note that the extinction of the ego doesn't have to mean the extinction of memories or even personality (this is one area where I disagree with Tolle). Memories and even personality can be part of the unconscious. In dreams we remember things, often more vividly than in waking life, and we exhibit telltale signs of our personality. But we also sometimes obtain insights into ourselves that seem to come from a higher source (a higher self) that is largely inaccessible to our conscious mind.

The ego, to me, is a very narrow slice of the total self, and I suspect it either vanishes entirely or at least is minimized to near-inconsequentiality after death, when the total self takes over.

The more you can get in touch with this total self - by meditation, by prayer, by calming the mind, by embracing intuition, or by other methods - the more you tend to stop worrying about the ego and its fate. This has been my experience anyway.

Hope this is helpful and doesn't sound like complete gobbledygook ...

Posted by: Michael Prescott | February 27, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Looking at the reports of the afterlife through some mediums, the purported communicators don't seem any different to what they were when with us here. Ego seems to be just as evident, or do you mean it disappears over time? If so I'd be interested to hear what you base that surmise on.

Posted by: Paul | February 27, 2011 at 07:26 PM

It's a difficult thing to put into words, unfortunately. By ego I don't mean personality. I agree that the personality comes through in mediumistic communications. Instead I mean the narrow, limited point of view that we call egocentricity.

The book Induced After-Death Communications provides many examples of people who, in an altered state, had apparent encounters with deceased persons who were important in their lives. Typically the deceased person projects a more mature, knowing, accepting attitude than he or she exhibited on earth. I believe this is because they shed the ego.

There may be cases where identification with the ego is so complete, the spirit remains earthbound, in a low state, for a long time. But those cases appear to be fairly rare.

If hypnotic regressions that explore between-life existence have any validity, then they also suggest that the ego is discarded after death.

Mystical experiences of the type described by Bucke in Cosmic Consciousness typically involve the loss or minimization of the ego. These experiences are similar in many respects to NDEs, so if NDEs are indicative of the death experience, then it seems likely that death also involves loss of the ego.

The very fact that the ego fears death, as it unquestionably does, suggests to me that it has something to fear. The ego knows that death is extinction because, for the ego, it is.

Posted by: Michael Prescott | February 28, 2011 at 02:07 AM

Michael, I agree with you in the sense that, for me, there is a spiritual bigger picture to which, both during and after our lives, the fruits of our personhood - if I can decribe it that way - contribute. There are times in our lives when we need a strong ego, but there is a kind of trick to ensuring it doesn't overstay its welcome. Otherwise, both in this life, and after we die, it can do more harm than good.

I would add there is another dimension to our fear of death, and that's losing contact with our loved ones. I think, spiritually speaking, it is possible to both become detached, while remaining in an earthly sense emotionally attached to those close to you (if that makes sense). But again, I think there is an art attached to achieving that.

None of this is easy (at least, I guess for most of us); perhaps because I think ultimately our fears are grounded in our ego's fear of change itself. But continual change, it seems to me, lies at the heart of everything. 'Go with the flow' is, at one level, as banal a cliche as they come. But in this context I think it captures something deep.

Posted by: Simon Oakes | February 28, 2011 at 04:10 AM

Thanks for the reply Michael and Simon. I am curious to know what you mean by 'ego'. Do you think it is something separate from the person? I have always viewed ego (perhaps simplistically) as a quality of a personality rather than the personality itself or something separate from it. Rather like the instinct for self-preservation or comfort or social importance. I have never considered the possibility that it is a separate entity (if I have read your comments correctly). Apologies if this is going off-topic.

@Simon - your comment regarding being detached and at the same time attached to those we care about is very interesting. I suspect you are quite correct when you say it is possible (even highly desirable) to achieve both but that it is difficult. It reminds me a little of stoicism (IMHO a very underrated quality).

Posted by: Paul | February 28, 2011 at 09:33 AM

IMO, the ego is a separate entity. We mistakenly self-identify with it. This is probably impossible not to do, when we are first developing our personalities.

The book Changes of Mind, by Jenny Wade, offers a lot of food for thought on this subject. So do Tolle's books.

The Greeks distinguished between the big self and the little self. I wrote a little about this a few years ago:

http://tinyurl.com/45vqlch

The little self is the ego; the big self is the higher self or true self. That's my way of looking at it, anyway.

Posted by: Michael Prescott | February 28, 2011 at 02:03 PM

Thanks Michael an interest (if somewhat brief) link.

Posted by: Paul | February 28, 2011 at 04:03 PM

I think the ego is the idea of separation. It may shape personality, but is not the personality. The ego would obviously suffer a major shift, if not be extinguished altogether during the transition from life to afterlife. It is probably why there is a personality transformation with NDE types. They don't come back without a personality, or necessarily an ego, but a new sense of wholeness with a bigger... something.

Posted by: Matt | March 01, 2011 at 02:46 AM

Good point Matt but that doesn't seem to be the case for communication via a medium from those who had an 'actual death experience':).

Perhaps such communicators are deliberately trying to look like their 'old' selves so that they can be more easily recognised?

As for the actual changes to those who experience NDEs; I suspect it is very hard to tell the exact extent of any change in personality/ego - the reports often put me in mind of religious conversion experiences.

There definitely seem to be significant changes however I wonder whether this is a fundamental change or if the same old urges and attitudes are still there but are controlled more effectively or the NDE experiencer now has a different perspective of them - in essence, NDEs do seem to provoke significant changes in attitude but whether this means there is a significant change in personality is perhaps a different question.

Posted by: Paul | March 01, 2011 at 04:32 AM

Okay, it is remarkable that someone with poor vision in his normal, conscious state could clearly make out details unaided by glasses in his out-of-body state. But, even more mind-blowing are the accounts of people who have been blind since birth who were able to actually experience vision, to "see" things in their near-death out-of-body state, their accounts corroborated by the attending medical staff. How does one make sense of that in conventional scientific thinking?

Posted by: Ed Sadowski | March 09, 2011 at 07:48 PM

"How does one make sense of that in conventional scientific thinking?"

By denying that it really happened as described, since in conventional scientific thinking this is impossible. If not an outright deliberate invention by the investigator or supposed experiencer, the experience had to have been an unconscious confabulation after the fact based on information picked up somehow by the normal senses. In the rigidly materialist reductionist mindset of most scientists, some explanation along these lines simply must be the truth regardless of the evidence.

Posted by: nbtruthman | March 11, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Michael Prescott's Blog

Occasional thoughts on matters of life and death

About

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Google search

Archives

X marks the spot

Comments