Michael Prescott's Blog

Noodlings

During the extended blackout caused by Hurricane Irene, I had plenty of time to noodle with my notebook. One thing I wrote was a dialogue scene between a professional ghost hunter and two prospective clients. The scene quickly turned into lengthy exposition, deadly in fiction, which shows why I would be no good at writing this kind of story - I would want to explain too much! But the ideas in themselves may be interesting, even though they are clearly pure speculation and not intended as any kind of "final answer" or even testable theory. 

The scene is all dialogue, so you'll just have to do your best to keep track of who's who, not that it matters much.

====

But how is it even possible? I mean – ghosts? In the 21st century? It's all so medieval and uncivilized. 

Well, there is a scientific way of looking at it. This is only a hypothesis, mind you. Have you ever played a video game? 

I used to play Tomb Raider. Never got past the second level.

Okay, so imagine that you're playing a really immersive video game. Wearing special goggles, a headset, gloves, whatever. The virtual environment is all around you. Everywhere you turn, you're looking at three dimensional images that seem real. You can manipulate things – grab objects. You can move through the space.

What does this have to do with – 

Bear with me. Let's suppose one other thing. Suppose you've lived in that virtual world all your life. You've never known any other reality. To you, it wouldn't be a game. It would be your existence. 

Like The Matrix.

Yes, exactly. Now what if our reality – this world we perceive with our senses, and even our own physical bodies – what if it's all a virtual reality? 

Then we're in a lab someplace, hooked up to a machine that makes us dream all this?

No. That would imply an ultimate physical reality. But I'm asking you to consider the idea that ultimate reality is non-physical. That it's more like information. That's what the virtual reality of a computer game is made of – information. Millions of bits of data. The whole virtual-reality world is the product of data processing. It's a complex system of algorithms that are recalculated many times each second. The changing calculations produce a new arrangement of pixels every time the screen is refreshed, which happens much faster than the blink of an eye. Movement on the screen is an illusion – the pixels are simply being arranged in slightly different configurations from one millisecond to the next. 

Then there would be no movement in the physical world?

Correct. Only the perception of movement. All change would take place at a deeper level, the level of information processing. There would be only two aspects of reality – the information processing system, and the consciousness that perceives it.

Science-fiction.

It could be. I said it's only a hypothesis. But it would explain some scientific anomalies. For instance, if you entangle two subatomic particles so they have a permanent relationship, and then separate them and send them flying off to opposite ends of the universe, you'll find that any change to one particle effects a complementary change in the other. It happens immediately, faster than any signal could be sent. How it happens is a mystery. But consider: if the values of each particle are linked in an equation at the level of information processing, then a change in one particle's value will cause an automatic change in the other particle's value as soon as the equation is recalculated. The physical distance dividing them is irrelevant, just as the physical distance between pixels on a computer screen is irrelevant. In terms of information processing, the distance doesn't even exist, since all the calculations are performed simultaneously every time the screen refreshes.

Then our world – this world – is constantly refreshing? Blinking on and off like a string of Christmas lights? 

Yes, but inconceivably faster. The refresh rate would be measured in Planck time, the smallest unit of time that can theoretically exist. Incidentally this would also address some very old logical paradoxes, like the fact that an arrow in flight is in motion even though at any given instant it is motionless. The answer is that the change in position occurs each time the screen - the universe - refreshes.  

It's an amusing supposition. I imagine it would have implications for the double-slit experiments too. 

Absolutely. You know how the behavior of single particles varies depending on how they are observed? Well, from an information-processing standpoint, we could say that the calculation that's performed depends on the information that's requested. If we request information on the particle's position, we'll get it. If we request information on the particle's momentum, we'll get that instead. The results of each calculation displace the previous results, so testing for position cancels out the information on momentum, and vice versa. We can never know both – that's Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. And the setup of our experiment determines which value will be calculated and which results will be actualized in our reality.

And all these calculations are being done, not by the observers themselves, but by the information processing system? 

Correct. Though it's a neat point to wonder whether the consciousness of the observers – that is, us – is part of the information processing system, or distinct from it. Maybe at the deepest level, it's all consciousness, and all information processing, and everything is one. Or maybe not. I don't know. 

I've talked to some physicists who say that there aren't any paradoxes in quantum physics, and that this is only a layman's misunderstanding. What do you have to say about that? 

I would say that it depends on your perspective. What those physicists are really saying, if I understand them correctly, is that there are no contradictions in the equations. In other words, because the equations can all be worked out in a completely satisfactory way, there is no problem. And that's true. But it doesn't change the fact that, at the level of human perception, there are apparent contradictions – that is, paradoxes – such as are found in quantum entanglement and the double-slit experiments. So the contradictions appear to exist at the level of physical reality but disappear at the level of the equations – in other words, at the level of the information processing system itself. Which is exactly what I'm saying too.

This is all very interesting, but what about our ghost?

So-called paranormal phenomena seem inexplicable only in the context of materialism. If this physical world is the be-all and end-all, then things like ghosts seem impossible. But if what we know as the physical world is actually a virtual-reality projection grounded in a non-physical information processing system, then not only quantum paradoxes become intelligible. The apparent contradictions of psychic phenomena are resolved, as well. Direct communication between minds – telepathy – is possible, because consciousness is not a byproduct of physical processes and so is not necessarily restricted by physical constraints. Direct awareness of objects outside our field of sensory perception – clairvoyance or remote viewing – is possible because all the information about those objects is stored in the information processing system, to which our minds can gain access under the right conditions. Life after death becomes quite plausible and even inevitable, since the physical body is only a construct of the information processing system, and its demise has no effect on either that system or consciousness itself. A postmortem existence would simply entail adjusting our consciousness to a different level of the virtual reality environment – like moving to level two of the Tomb Raider game you mentioned. And probably there are many levels, offering a continuous opportunity for learning and growth.

And our ghost is, what, stuck on this level? 

There are two kinds of ghosts. Well, there may be more than two kinds, but the ones I've encountered fall into two groups, broadly speaking. First, there are apparitions that don't interact with the living and merely repeat the same stereotyped behavior over and over. I think these have no consciousness at all. They are just subroutines in the program – automatically generated sets of calculations that keep on playing because of a glitch in the system. The second kind are more troublesome. They are souls – I mean, they exhibit consciousness. They're aware of their surroundings, though they may feel confused and helpless. They will interact with the living, often in mischievous or even violent ways. They are, as you say, "stuck." They should have progressed to the next level of the game, but for some reason, usually relating to an emotional block or an obsession or unresolved guilt, they have not made the transition. Their physical body is gone, but they still visualize themselves as they were when they were physically embodied, and they can manifest that visualization to some extent – typically in an incomplete form, such as a half-materialized or semitransparent figure. Remember, the so-called materialization is just more information processing, and consciousness can interact with the information processing system in subtle and unpredictable ways. 

Then how do we get this particular consciousness to stop manifesting?

Its continued earthly existence is literally all in the mind. To make it move on, we only have to make it change its mind. We have to make the errant soul see the light – quite literally, since the transition to the next level is accomplished by means of passage through an all encompassing light. 

What is the light?

I suspect it's a visual representation of the totality of information contained in the information processing system.

All knowledge …

Yes. People who've had near-death experiences and encountered the light sometimes say they'd been exposed to all knowledge, and were one with everything. But the feeling doesn't last – or it lasts only in an attenuated form – once the experience is over.

It's an ingenious little theory. But there's a fatal flaw. Brain damage. 

Come again?

If things worked the way you suggest, the condition of our brain wouldn't affect our power of thought. But it does. Damage to the brain – whether by accident or illness or ingestion of chemicals – definitely impairs our consciousness. So consciousness must arise from the brain, and physical reality must take precedence over consciousness. QED. 

Yes, that's a good objection, and if there were no evidence contrary to materialism then it would be the simplest and safest position to take. But there is such evidence, a lot of it. Your ghost, for example. 

So if the brain doesn't produce consciousness ...

I would say the brain functions mainly as a receiver of consciousness, much in the way that an electronic receiver like a TV set receives an electromagnetic signal. And if the receiver is damaged, its ability to pick up and decode the signal will be impaired, leading to all kinds of problems. But this analogy is probably much too simple, because actually the nervous system does produce some of the elements of consciousness. Hormonal changes can give rise to certain emotions, for instance, and instinctive drives or conditioned reflexes can affect the way we think. In other words, the brain and consciousness have a complicated interrelationship. While we are physically embodied, we are – for the most part – constrained by the limitations of our bodies, including our nervous system. I say "for the most part" because some people do have ways of transcending their physical limitations by practicing ESP or engaging in out-of-body explorations. Actually I think all of us have this ability, but in most of us it's latent or dormant most of the time. Anyway, it's true that our consciousness is usually restricted by the limitations of the brain while we inhabit – or believe we inhabit – a physical body. That appears to be one of the rules of the game, at least at this level. Other levels presumably have different rules. We'll find out when we get there.

So you're saying a person with, say, Alzheimer's would be completely lucid as a spirit?

Yes, after perhaps a period of orientation to dispel any confusion or any lingering effects that the disease may have been imprinted on his or her consciousness. In fact the person would be more lucid than he or she ever was on earth because the limiting and distorting effects of the nervous system would no longer apply. 

I found this video by frequent commenter Sandy very impressive:

http://sandstonesquarry.blogspot.com/2011/08/lets-try-that-again.html

My first thought, upon seeing one of her pinwheel videos, was that static electricity might somehow be involved. But this simple test seems to rule it out. (As you can see from the post that immediately precedes the linked post, the bits of styrofoam are placed inside and around the jar in order to show if static electricity is a factor.)

Zerdini points me to a very good article about controversial medium David Thompson:

http://paranormalreview.com/articles/20110816

The comments are also worth reading.

A new NDE

Rudolf Smit, who has written extensively about the "dentures" NDE, directed me to this exceptional YouTube account of a veridical NDE in an operating room, as told by the cardiac surgeon who conducted the operation. 

The usual explanations of cardiac massage, partial consciousness, hallucination, etc. don't seem to apply here. 

Sit back and reflect

Hrvoje Butkovic, who sometimes comments on this blog, has set up a new website dedicated to "the idea of creating a self-reflective society." According to the site, such a society has the following features: 

It encourages people to stop uncritically adopting the ways of others – be it leaders or role models in the political, business, religious, entertainment, or any other arena – and instead discover for themselves the most authentic, meaningful and fulfilling ways to live.

It encourages people to scrutinise the foundation on which it rests – in the form of values and beliefs – for the purpose of identifying and replacing those that don’t accurately represent them.

It encourages people to scrutinise the social structures that were built on top of that foundation for the purpose of identifying and replacing those that do not produce results consistent with the stated values and beliefs.

It encourages people to continuously engage in the above exercises, and so keep refining themselves and the society in which they live.

With all the panic and hysteria in the news lately, now may be the right time for some quiet reflection. 

Backwards and forwards

I've now read more than half of Nanci L. Danison's book Backwards - enough to make a few provisional comments about it. I've also read parts of her blog, which is quite interesting. 

I can't evaluate the biographical details of her book. I don't know what the facts surrounding her near-death experience might be. All I can do is assess her claims on a subjective basis - namely, do they make sense to me? Do they help to explain things that are otherwise inexplicable? Do they cohere with other accounts that I find basically reliable?

There's nothing particularly "scientific" about these criteria. I'm not sure that metaphysical speculation about the nature and purpose of reality fits within the confines of science or of the scientific method. Answering these questions is a personal journey that each of us undertakes on our own.

Danison's main point is that, while we think of ourselves as human beings who have a soul, we would be more correct in viewing ourselves as souls who temporarily inhabit human bodies. This may sound like a distinction without a difference, but it turns out to be pretty important. What it means is that there are two loci of consciousness in each of us - the limited, reflexive, instinctual, not especially reflective or self-aware consciousness of a human being, and the larger, more comprehensive, nonjudgmental, unconditionally loving consciousness of the "Light Being" that inhabits its human "host." What we think of as the soul is a complex interplay or blending of these two levels of consciousness, with one or the other predominating in any given situation. 

Personally, I find this idea useful in explaining humanity's dualistic nature. Most of us have probably had the experience of feeling primitive, raw, violent emotions at one time or another, and may have been a little shocked at ourselves for exhibiting this animalistic quality. And there is no doubt that the human organism can behave much like an animal; the fight-or-flight response, for instance, is not controlled by the reasoning mind, but originates in a more primitive part of the brain. A great deal of human experience seems to be the product of biology, and yet purely biological explanations are hard-pressed to deal with the higher accomplishments of the human species. It's hard to see how there could be any Darwinian survival value in the ability to compose a symphony or perform Fourier analysis. To all appearances, it really does seem as though we are composed of two parts: our biological, animal nature, which is mechanistic, limited, and oriented toward survival and reproduction; and our higher spiritual self, which cannot be explained by reductionism and is not necessarily "practical" in terms of everyday earthly existence.

If you think about it, I suspect you will find many examples in your own life, and in history, of the tug-of-war between the animal side of human nature and the spiritual side. This is not to say that the animal side is "bad." Danison takes pains to explain that, as a living organism, the human being is naturally motivated to defend its own interests and secure its own safety, to compete with other humans for scarce resources, and to favor close biological relatives or sexual partners over strangers from different tribes. Without the instincts for self-preservation and reproduction, without the sometimes cruel qualities required for survival in the wild, human beings would have faced extinction long ago. Just as we would not regard a pack of wolves as "bad" because they don't adhere to "civilized" standards of conduct, we shouldn't regard natural human behavior as bad simply because it fails to live up to the more advanced, but (in earthly terms) sometimes impractical, standards of the Light Beings.

In this respect, it's worth pointing out that the greatest messengers of spiritual truth often counsel us to do things that seem quite impractical. Jesus' admonitions to turn the other cheek, "resist not evil," and leave our livelihood to Providence ("the lilies of the field ...") are beautifully expressed, but probably could not be carried out as an actual design for living - at least not for very long. Perhaps a few advanced individuals could live that way, but most of us would probably end up as victims of more aggressive persons or at the mercy of nature. The advice, in other words, seems to relate to another sphere of existence, in which ordinary human concerns over self-preservation and practical planning are irrelevant. The sphere of the Light Beings, perhaps.

The idea that there are two levels of consciousness in each of us may be hard to accept (though personally I find it quite plausible); but Danison goes further, explaining that there are many more levels of consciousness. She writes,

During my beyond-death experience I was astonished to experience a transition from the "self" I had known in the body through higher and higher levels of consciousness, each of which I remembered having lived before. Each one felt like the "real" me, only with far greater mental capacity, memory, and abilities as I progressed through the process. I understood at last that what we really are is a compilation of multiple levels of consciousness, each of which perceives itself to be a singular, unique person. Each has its own method of origin, lifespan, and innate nature.

In other words, each Light Being undergoes many incarnations, experiencing an almost infinite variety of situations. But why? The answer, according to Danison, is deceptively simple: God, which she dubs Source, has split itself into countless Light Beings for the purpose of experiencing everything that can be experienced. Although in our human incarnation we may long for a feeling of oneness with the universe,

... the human experience is about separateness. Individuality. We are here precisely to experience that feeling. 

In Danison's view, there can be no bad experiences when viewed from the perspective of the Being of Light. The most miserable, wretched earthly life will still yield a trove of sensations, perceptions, insights, and memories treasured by our higher self. In fact, the whole idea of good and bad is a strictly human perspective; and while necessary to bring order to human society, it's not part of a higher plan. The higher plan is simply to maximize experiences of all kinds, whether "good" or "bad."

This viewpoint reminds me of Gnosticism, which similarly holds that God wishes to have a broad variety of experiences and is not interested in traveling a narrow, moralistically defined path. The early Christian Gnostics were classed as heretics by more conventional Christians in part because they did not believe that any behavior was actually good or evil when viewed from a higher perspective.

But why would anyone choose to incarnate if the life in question will be one of misery and pain? Danison suggests that the experience could compared to watching a horror movie or reading a depressing novel. Many of us seek out these experiences because we know that the movie or book is only a  fantasy, and it takes up only a little of our time without any lasting negative effects. From the point of view of a Light Being, Danison says, earthly life is not quite real, but more like a dream, and a lifetime of pain and deprivation is only a passing, momentary event. 

If there is no good and evil from a spiritual perspective, then how can we explain persistence in the belief in eternal punishment, which finds some support in nightmarish or hellish NDEs? Danison writes, 

Some year-death experiencers (NDErs) report trips to hell after they leave their bodies. My understanding of our nature as Light Beings leads me to believe that those NDErs may not have gone far enough through the transition from human to Being of Light to lose their combined human/soul personalities. So they manifested events born of human fear, as though they were still in the body.

Alternatively, these NDErs may consider the life review, with its associated emotions, to be a form of punishment expected only in hell.... Yet it is temporary. All hellish or unpleasant events experienced after permanently leaving the body after its death are temporary, and last only so long as it takes you to come to terms with the end of your human adventure and make emotional peace with yourself.

Presumably, so-called earthbound spirits who remain attached to the earth plane or who wander in limbo also have not completed "the transition from human being to Being of Light." Since time is a quality of the earth plane but not of the spiritual world, they may remain lost and confused for what seems like a considerable amount of time by earthly standards. (This is my interpretation; so far I haven't come across anything in Danison's book that addresses this issue.)

Overall I find Backwards intriguing and helpful in resolving certain questions about dualism, morality, and the purpose of life. That's not to say I agree with everything the author says. One area where I differ involves her assertion that we all manifest our own reality. She writes,

Tomorrow morning, when you awake, you will manifest into reality precisely what you went to bed believing about your world. You do it from memory. From habit. If you are not sure about this, remember that for centuries Europeans lived on a flat Earth. They experienced our planet as flat, saw it ending at the horizon, and therefore believed Earth to be a plate. Reality stayed that way until Christopher Columbus and others disproved human perception by sailing past the horizon without falling off.

I have some problems with this. To begin with, educated Europeans of Columbus's day did not believe that the Earth was flat. They knew it was round; their disagreement with Columbus was that they believed the circumference of the globe was too great for a voyage from Europe to India to be practical. Columbus disagreed, thinking the Earth was small enough to allow a direct westward voyage. In fact, the authorities were correct, and Columbus was wrong. Columbus's voyage would have ended in failure if he hadn't come across the Americas, which he mistakenly believed to be India. 

Leaving aside this historical issue, I don't believe that anyone has ever "lived on a flat Earth." Certainly many people have believed the earth was flat, but I don't buy the idea that their belief changed physical reality. External reality on spiritual planes does appear to be a direct projection of consciousness, but I don't think the physical world is equally malleable. Indeed, I think this is one of the key differences between the Earth plane and spiritual planes.

For that reason, I'm skeptical of the idea that we can change material reality by adjusting our thoughts and expectations, by saying affirmations, or by meditating intently. I'm not saying these practices have no effect, but I'm not convinced they can yield tangible benefits in most cases - though in some remarkable (one might say "miraculous") cases, they do.

Another thing I don't particularly like about Danison's book is the title. I realize this is petty, but I just don't think Backwards is a very good name for the book. I understand that the author is telling us that we've got it all backwards, starting with the idea that we are human beings with souls rather than souls (or more correctly, Light Beings) enjoying a symbiotic relationship with human organisms. Nevertheless, if I'd published the book, I would've called it something else.

So that's my two cents about the fifty percent of the book I've read so far. I know that one or two commenters are reading it, and others have looked at Danison's blog. What do you think?