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. 

Comments

[Susan]

That was fun. I'm a closet "Ghost Adventures" fan and you've just made my viewing even better.

[Tony]

i guess if it was possible for there to be a case where somebody with damage to the brain severe enough to reduce consciousness which then improved back to normal - you could ask if they remember any unusual states like OBE etc
Think Frank Tipler - Physicist views our reality as a possible emulation analogus to a software program

[Kathleen]

Loved it, that is exactly my perspective now. It seems to correspond to the only ghost I ever saw (or thought I saw at least), as the ghost didn't have a physical body as we know it, but seemed to be made up of light, or illuminated somehow from within. And the other thing that struck me was the peace and good will radiating from this figure. Whenever I'm in doubt about an afterlife, I remember that experience and all doubt is removed.

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

Who do you see as the target audience for this dialog? 1) People like your regular blog readers/commenters who might be knowledgeable about the afterlife and about virtual/holographic models of the universe? 2) Scientifically minded and open minded sceptics of the afterlife? 3) Or an average person who is new to the subject of the afterlife?

I assume your target audience is #1.

If it was #3 I would say it might be needlessly confusing to mix the two ideas of virtual reality and survival of consciousness when there is so much strong evidence of survival from nde's, mediums, reincarnation research, etc. Why resort to something so speculative as virtual reality when there is so much concrete evidence of survival?

If your target audience is #2 I think you still have to go into the evidence for the afterlife. Entanglement, wave/particle duality, and the uncertainty principle might make a sceptic open to the idea of virtual reality but it wouldn't make him open to the possibility of an afterlife. You would still need to go into the evidence for that subject in detail.

So, I assume your target audience is #1 and you are writing this simply to explore the idea of virtual reality...

In that case, I think you should elaborate the role of the brain further as a receiver of consciousness while at the same time consciousness is being fed information by the cosmic computer generating virtual reality. How can a brain, made of physical matter, be a receiver of consciousness if the physical universe is a virtual reality being displayed to a preexisting consciousness? How does that work?

Also, how do you reconcile descriptions of the afterlife from nde's and mediums, with the virtual reality theory? Is the afterlife virtual too? It would have to be if you explain telepathy as a result of calculations rather than a physical process, because spirits are telepathic.

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

I am not a big fan of the "receiver of consciousness" model of the brain. I think it is too limited and therefore confusing. How can consciousness be like an electromagnetic wave traveling through space until it is received by the brain? It isn't really an explanation of how the brain influences consciousness it is only an example of how something can depend on another thing without being created by the other thing (ie consciousness depends on the brain but is not created by the brain just like a tv signal is influenced by the tv set but isn't created by the tv set).

I prefer the filter model of the brain. The brain filters consciousness - it restricts consciousness while we are incarnated. A filter can be damaged in two ways. It can get clogged or it can have holes put in it. If the brain restricted consciousness we would expect to find two types of anomolies. 1) Anomolies where some functions of consciousness are eliminated ( the filter gets clogged) and 2) anomolies were new functions of consciousness are added (holes are made in the filter). Furthermore we also would expect that full consciousness would exist when the filter is removed. In fact we find such anomolies being reported.

Damage to the brain can cause memory loss - an example of loss of function (clogged filter).

People often report having more psychic experiences after some types of brain injuries or ndes. These increased functions of consciousness make sense as the result of "holes" in the filter caused by brain damage.

NDE'ers report a recognition of oneness and seeing colors that they don't see on earth. Blind people report seeing during nde's. This indicates that a much greater consciousness is experienced when the filter is removed.

[Roger Knights]

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, ...

But up until 200 or so years ago, the dialog form was in common use in nonfiction as an expositional technique. It ought to be brought back. It allows the author the freedom to jump around in his presentation, rather than having to "follow" the logical thread of an argument in a pedestrian fashion.

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.

Just italicize the questioner's dialog.

[Juan]

Your idea of reality as pure information is interesting, but I have several objections.
First, I do not think we have to start from a theory and deduce from it certain phenomena such as psi phenomena and life after death, but rather the reverse: from the empirical evidence of these phenomena and then conclude which is the simplest theory that explains them all. Second, the holographic paradigm also explains well the phenomena psi and quantum entanglement without reducing everything to information. Third, if everything is information processing and consciousness, then what about knowledge? We live in a society that tends to reduce knowledge to information, but I think that knowledge is more than pure information. And fourth, there are several theories that might explain the fenomenso psi and the afterlife without assuming that this is a reality of pure information.

[tony]

jshgfcre98ijyds - I think the filter idea you mention is good - so as we are now the filter would be restricted/narrower - but its starting to look like the receiver again but from a different perspective.
Does a person thats blind from birth - when dreaming or hypnogogic state - see people/detail?

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

"Does a person thats blind from birth - when dreaming or hypnogogic state - see people/detail?"

Here are some responses including some from blind people.

http://www.afb.org/message_board_replies.asp?topicid=638&folderid=3

My sense is that the preponderance of evidence is that the answer to your question is no, people blind from birth don't see in dreams. However there is mention of one study that thought the answer might be yes.

Here is a example of an nde by a person blind from birth who saw during her nde

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence03.html

"This was," she said, "the only time I could ever relate to seeing and to what light was, because I experienced it."

If you want more information try the google queries "blind people see during ndes" and "do people blind from birth see during dreams"

[Ben]

A nice bit of noodling Socrates!

[Michael Clarage]

I was away in NH on a lake in a cabin for vacation. For whatever reason, it was a creepy cabin. It was scary at night, and I felt a definite change inside my own psychology. If a nasty ghost appeared, it was going to appear because of some synchronization with my own mind. Whatever ghosts are, I felt that they need a mind in which to materialize. I guess I have heard plenty of stories about young children that still see angles. Their minds have not yet had the adult filters put in place.

http://mclarage.blogspot.com/

[GregL]

Michael

Great stuff! Finally a lucid explanation of the VR theory. However, one other "brain" explanation might be added. The brain neither filters or receives consciousness. The brain exists just as the particle, only there when we look for it. The deficiencies caused by brain injury, alzheimers etc. are all part of the program we are experiencing. When a character's brain is injured in "Tomb Raider" is the players consciousness injured? no, it is a "virtual" impairment. Just as there is no body, there is no brain. This also removes the duality problem from all of the brain/mind explanations.

GregL

[Michael Prescott]

"Who do you see as the target audience for this dialog?"

Nobody. I was just messing around. The power was off; I had nothing else to do.

"Is the afterlife virtual too?"

In this hypothesis, yes. It's another level of the VR environment. Incidentally this matches up with traditions that say that the things seen and encountered in the afterlife (at least in its early stages) are products of thought.

"if you explain telepathy as a result of calculations rather than a physical process"

In this view, there is no such thing as a physical process per se. Everything is the result of calculations at the ultimate level of reality. It is not as if there is one kind of reality that is information and another kind that is physical. It is all information.

"I do not think we have to start from a theory and deduce from it certain phenomena such as psi phenomena and life after death, but rather the reverse"

I agree, but I wasn't trying to prove the reality of psi in this dialogue. Yes, the empirical evidence is what counts.

"Just italicize the questioner's dialog."

I'm too lazy. People consistently overestimate my work ethic.

[Douglas]

This reminds me of a particular quantum physicist recently, who was protesting at 'quantum mysticism' and saying that 'I’m afraid to tell these people that quantum mechanics is a wholly physical process, there's nothing mystical about it'.

It struck me that he's got a rather rigid view of 'the physical', because the deeper you get into the quantum world, the less like the regular 'physical world' it appears. It seems that this individual is stuck within some kind of rigid definition of just what 'the physical' is.

[Kris]

I just had to pass on this. Sorry to change the subject a bit but I suspect everyone will like this.

Dr Woerlee really stuck his foot down his throat this time.

http://tinyurl.com/4ynjdg7

[Roger Knights]

Here's what's on Coast to Coast radio tonight, Friday:

"tonight's show
1am - 5am ET
10pm - 2am PT
NDEs & Open Lines
Fri 09-02

George Noory welcomes near death experiencer Kathy Baker, who will share what she believes happened during the 8-minute period she was clinically dead."

[Roger Knights]

"Just italicize the questioner's dialog."

I'm too lazy. People consistently overestimate my work ethic.

Assuming you initially typed it up in a Word document, you can create AutoCorrect shorthand items for the beginning and ending of italics or (better) blockquote tags. I use bq and bqs for the latter, which indents the quoted material.

[Michael Prescott]

That still sounds like work, Roger. Actually I initially wrote it by hand, then dictated it using Dragon Dictate. I'm doing my best to avoid Word and all Microsoft products now, having made the transition to Apple.

[Art]

There is a phenomena where some people right before dying get it all back. It's called "terminal lucidity."

http://havealittletalk.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/imminent-death-and-spontaneous-return-to-mental-awareness/

Of course another interesting phenomena is Dr. John Lorber's hydrocephalus patients with very thin layer of brain cells with normal I.Q.s. - who have essentially no brain yet seem to act quite normal.

[Steve]

Enjoyed reading this Michael, thanks.

You are an interesting person and reading this part of your posting: "There would be only two aspects of reality – the information processing system, and the consciousness that perceives it." reminds me of something that I keep returning to in Carl Jung's Memories, Dreams, Reflections.

Although, I know that the words are not exactly Jung's, I am sure that the thoughts are his and they are beautifully written. In 1925 Jung went to Africa and he tells of looking out over a plain containing herds of grazing animals. If I may quote a couple of sentences.

"This was the stillness of the eternal beginning, the world as it had always been, in the state of non-being; for until then no one had been present to know that it was this world. I walked away from my companions until I had put them out of sight, and savored the feeling of being entirely alone. There I was now, the first human being to recognize that this was the world, but who did not know that in this moment he had first really created it.

There the cosmic meaning of consciousness became overwhelmingly clear to me. "What nature leaves imperfect, the art perfects," say the alchemists. Man, I, in an invisible act of creation put the stamp of perfection on the world by giving it objective existence." ( from Memories, Dreams, Reflections )

There is more well worth reading on this particular experience, but the point that I guess I am hoping to make is that I really believe Carl Jung understood that "There would be only two aspects of reality – the information processing system, and the consciousness that perceives it". Of course, that is my interpretation and I am struck by the synchronicity of your thoughts and what I perceive to be Jung's thoughts on this rainy evening.

[Michael Prescott]

Great comment, Steve!

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

"Jung went to Africa and he tells of looking out over a plain containing herds of grazing animals.

...

This was the stillness of the eternal beginning, the world as it had always been, in the state of non-being; for until then no one had been present to know that it was this world."

I don't really understand this. Can someone explain it more clearly? What does this have to do with Michael's post? How does looking at a natural landscape prove that the universe is a computer simulation? It made Jung think along those lines and express it in beautiful words? What is the logical relationship between the observation and the conclusion? I don't get it. What is unique about the African landscape that is missing from other landscapes? Do the people who live in the area all think the world is a simulation too?

"There I was now, the first human being to recognize that this was the world, but who did not know that in this moment he had first really created it."

I'm confused. Did he think he created reality or didn't he? It sounds like he thinks he created it so why does he say he "did not know" it?

"There the cosmic meaning of consciousness became overwhelmingly clear to me. "What nature leaves imperfect, the art perfects," say the alchemists. Man, I, in an invisible act of creation put the stamp of perfection on the world by giving it objective existence."

If you think there is something qualitatively different between human consciousness and the consciousness of grazing animals I think you are mistaken.

When did the world come into existence? When the first modern human evolved a few millions of years ago? It sounds like Jung would say the creationist time line, 6000 years, is closer to the truth than the mainstream scientific view that the universe is twelve billion years old.

[Steve]

"I don't really understand this. Can someone explain it more clearly? What does this have to do with Michael's post? How does looking at a natural landscape prove that the universe is a computer simulation? It made Jung think along those lines and express it in beautiful words? What is the logical relationship between the observation and the conclusion? I don't get it. What is unique about the African landscape that is missing from other landscapes? Do the people who live in the area all think the world is a simulation too?"

To imply that the ultimate reality is a computer simulation requires a physical reality where there is a wizard behind the curtain and that may be a little naive.

I really just made a comment for Michael because he is a thoughtful and insightful person - perhaps a little (or maybe even a lot) like Jung was. It really takes a lot of reading to understand Jung. I first read that very passage maybe 45 years ago and only now really understand it. I think understanding comes with spiritual maturity - whatever that is, right?

[Tony]

Things seen in THIS life can also be the product of thought - Acausal Connecting Principle, Micro PK - not just the early stages of afterlife

[Alan]

Interesting is here re information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs_Ldn8c0XE

Processess going on in the universe's volume - stars, Starbucks, shopping, physics arising from the four fundamental forces etc., are not occurring in the volume at all but are actually a "projection" - of information on the surface enclosing this volume.

Experimental test of this is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2b2XzVK1TM

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

" I think understanding comes with spiritual maturity - whatever that is, right?"

Sometimes you need a better understanding of a subject before you can explain it to someone else.

In my opinion, spiritual maturity is measured by character traits like love, forgiveness, tolerance, sacrifice, and persistence.

What I have read is that to get to the higher levels of the spirit world (which is the measure of spirtiual maturity) you have to have the right character traits. As far as I know, you don't have to pass an examination that tests your intellectual understanding of Jungian philosophy.

[Tony]

to get to the higher levels with those traits- thats a grossly unfair system - because it wont help people say with mental illness - they wont have some of those traits.
So are they not allowed the spiritual world?

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

The mental illness will not be present when they leave the physical body. At that time they will most likely have a greater ability to forigive, love, and tolerate those who act "crazy" because they will understand what it is like to be crazy.

I have a lot of criticisms about the system not being fair to us while we are incarnated but it seems to be effective for us when we return to the spirit realm.

[Steve]

"In my opinion, spiritual maturity is measured by character traits like love, forgiveness, tolerance, sacrifice, and persistence."

Those are human qualities and don't necessarily carry over to two dimensional beings at the edge of the universe having a three dimensional experience. And I think that is what the post is about, data on the periphery projected as a drama that we can experience such as we are doing now.

"When did the world come into existence? When the first modern human evolved a few millions of years ago? It sounds like Jung would say the creationist time line, 6000 years, is closer to the truth than the mainstream scientific view that the universe is twelve billion years old."

You are completely wrong and I am at fault for not including the entire two paragraphs from the book, so with Michael's permission I will do so now.

"From Nairobi we used a small Ford to visit the
Athi Plains, a great game preserve. From a low hill in this broad savanna a magnificent prospect opened out to us. To the very brink of the horizon we saw gigantic herds of animals: gazelle, antelope, gnu, zebra, warthog, and so on. Grazing, heads nodding, the herds moved forward like slow rivers. There was scarcely any sound save the melancholy cry of a bird of prey. This was the stillness of the eternal beginning, the world as it had always been, in the state of non-being; for until then no one had been present to know that it was this world. I walked away from my companions until I had put them out of sight, and savored the feeling of being entirely alone. There I was now, the first human being to recognize that this was the world, but who did not know that in this moment he had first really created it.

There the cosmic meaning of consciousness became overwhelmingly clear to me. "What nature leaves imperfect, the art perfects," say the alchemists. Man, I, in an invisible act of creation put the stamp of perfection on the world by giving it objective existence. This act we usually ascribe to the Creator alone, without considering that in so doing we view life as a machine calculated down to the last detail, which, along with the human psyche, runs on senselessly, obeying foreknown and predetermined rules. In such a cheerless clockwork fantasy there is no drama of man, world, and God; there is no "new day" leading to "new shores," but only the dreariness of calculated processes. My old Pueblo friend came to my mind. He thought that the raison d' etre of his pueblo had been to help their father , the sun, to cross the sky each day. I had envied him for the fullness of meaning in that belief, and had been looking about without hope for a myth of our own. Now I knew what it was, and knew even more: that man is indispensable for the completion of creation; that, in fact, he himself is the second creator of the world, who alone has given to the world its objective existence -- without which, unheard, unseen, silently eating, giving birth, dying, heads nodding through hundreds of millions of years, it would have gone on in the profoundest night of non-being down to its unknown end. Human consciousness created objective existence and meaning, and man found his his indispensable place in the great process of being." ( from Memories, Dreams, Reflections )

Really, I don't see how these thoughts could possibly require any explanation or clarification and it should be quite obvious how this pertains to the original posting.

[Michael Duggan]

Penny Sartori, a nurse and Ph.D researcher here in the UK has done excellent work in the NDE field. She has her own blog, and I was skimming through the comments under her latest post and she mentions that no one so far has identified the target in Sam Parnia's AWARE study. In her opinion, it will take 20 years worth of data collection before anything definitive will emerge given the very low frequency of quality verical OBE's from NDE's.

http://drpennysartori.wordpress.com/2011/08/13/obe-veridicality-research/#comments

[Michael Prescott]

Interesting, Michael Duggan. I wonder if 20 years of data collection will even be attempted. It may simply be the case that this phenomenon is too elusive to be trapped this way.

I guess maybe that's been my reason for doubting the outcome of AWARE all along - it seems to me that these "marginal" or "liminal" phenomena (as George Hansen would characterize them) are almost impossible to nail down. Something relatively simple like telepathy can be captured in an experiment, but when we get into more complex issues like OBEs and NDEs, we may simply be going beyond anything that an experimental setup can handle.

In that case, we would have to conclude that science cannot resolve these issues. But why would we ever have assumed that science could resolve them? Science cannot address every question. There are limits to science just as there are limits to every methodology and every sphere of inquiry.

[Neo]

Stop posting such stuff. If they find out that you're trying to ruin the Game you'll get editted out!

[GregL]

"....no one so far has identified the target in Sam Parnia's AWARE study..."

Not an unexpected outcome. I am hoping that, at least, the physical attributes of consciousness are mapped and correlated to the NDE states. The possibility of lucid consciousness during a physically impossible to be conscious state, could be just as, or even more important, than target identification.

[sbu]

Sartori writes
In my research eight patients reported an out of body type experience but none of them reported the hidden symbol. The reasons for this were the varying qualities of the OBEs reported.

Seems to be an issue with bias here. That's why bayesian statistics is such a hot topic these days.

[.]

"....no one so far has identified the target in Sam Parnia's AWARE study..."

I don't think the interviews have been carried out yet. I think they have over a thousand cardiac arrest survivors according to Horizon research.

http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=253

[Michael Prescott]

Now that I've read Sartori's blog post, I agree with "." that she doesn't actually say the AWARE study has come up empty. Maybe you could read her remarks as implying this, but she seems to leave the issue open.

[.]

Thanks, Michael,

I believe ( fairly sure but not certain) that Parnia is going to publish any veridical accounts that may have been corroborated. Even if the target is not seen specifically, if the recollections of events are correct while the patient is unconscious then that in itself is bound to be taken into account.

These 'more general' observations cannot be just ignored as if..." Well... that's quite normal, all unconscious patients can accurately describe the events of their cardiac arrest".....because THAT shouldn't happen.

Thirdly, Parnia said something very significant recently,although not much was made of it... " Contrary to my scientific training the entity we call human consciousness appears to continue into death"
That is a bold statement, so the study must be revealing something out of the ordinary.

[.]

Here is an interview with Parnia in 2008

What was your first interview like with someone who had reported an out-of-body experience?

Eye-opening and very humbling. Because what you see is that, first of all, they are completely genuine people who are not looking for any kind of fame or attention. In many cases they haven't even told anybody else about it because they're afraid of what people will think of them. I have about 500 or so cases of people that I've interviewed since I first started out more than 10 years ago. It's the consistency of the experiences, the reality of what they were describing. I managed to speak to doctors and nurses who had been present who said these patients had told them exactly what had happened, and they couldn't explain it. I actually documented a few of those in my book What Happens When We Die because I wanted people to get both angles —not just the patients' side but also the doctors' side — and see how it feels for the doctors to have a patient come back and tell them what was going on. There was a cardiologist that I spoke with who said he hasn't told anyone else about it because he has no explanation for how this patient could have been able to describe in detail what he had said and done. He was so freaked out by it that he just decided not to think about it anymore

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/ article/0,8599,1842627,00.html# ixzz1XH4rz0gB

[.]

A typical case taken from a comments page which I personally can't verify but have no reason to think it's made up. (sorry for spamming up your blog, please delete if it's too much)

From 1982 to 1984 i was employed as a Staff Nurse on a cardiac ward in East Lancashire, UK. During this two year period i had many occasions to talk with patients who had been sucessfuly resuscitated following cardiac arrest. Several described OOBE's involving 'Angelic music, tunnels, bright lights and visions of deceased relatives and even pets.

One particular incident springs to mind. An elderly gentleman suffered a cardiac arrest on the ward necessitating immediate resuscitation procedures. During these procedures, i fumbled and dropped a kidney tray containing a syringe full of cardio stimulant drugs. I rapidly prepared another syringe as the attending doctor chided me for my clumsiness.

Said gentleman responded well to the emergency interventions and was immediately transferred to the ICU department (without regaining conciousness on the ward)

Three days later he returned to cardiac ward on which i worked and i was amazed when he shared his experience of the cardiac arrest. From a viewpoint position above his bed he described what he saw of the resucitation procedure carried out upon him by the resuscitation team, including details such as myself dropping the tray of drugs and the Doctor chiding me. He even described where the dropped syringe rolled under a bedside locker from where i later retrieved it. Such was the clarity of detail and chronological accuracy of his perception that i have retained an open mind on this phenomena ever since.

At long last scientists are studying a phenomena that on an anecdotal level has been experienced by Patients, Nurses and Doctors.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2980578/Scientists-study-out-of-body-experiences.html#dsq-content

[Michael Duggan]

I've been following Parnia quite closely over the last few years and his tone has shifted towards being more measured. If you compare any recent interview to the enthusiasm he displays, on for example, The Day I Died, a 2003 BBC documentary, the contrast is clear.

[.]

Yes, I agree, but I believe that is because he has to be scrupulously unbiased rather than he thinks it's all an illusion.

The sceptics really only have the mind model as an explanation. People mostly dream or imagine in field memory, not observer memory.

[.]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2005/feb/19/weekend.iansample

Why did these patients who were 'actually' awake during anesthesia (anesthesia awareness) not report a pleasant OBE etc ?

[Rudolf Smit]

Thanks Mrs or Ms dot (.) The story you copied is wonderful, with veridical content, and I have related it to some interested people in the Netherlands.

[Michael Prescott]

In the Telegraph article Sam Parnia is quoted as saying:

"It is unlikely that we will find many cases where this happens, but we have to be open-minded.
"And if no one sees the pictures, it shows these experiences are illusions or false memories."

If he really said this, he is putting way too much emphasis on a single aspect of a possibly flawed experimental design. A more accurate statement would be, "If no one sees the pictures, it will cast doubt on the hypothesis that actual OBEs are occurring, although anomalous results from a good deal of prior research will remain to be accounted for."

[.]

"If no one sees the pictures, it will cast doubt on the hypothesis that actual OBEs are occurring"

I agree, it will cast doubt but personally I can't really see why because if the OBERer didn't go near or above the target (and it's not as if they are going to be looking for them)...how could they see it.

I still can't understand why if they ( the comatose patients ) see a doctor running in with a pair of cow horns on his head for instance ( it's the Christmas party and he forgot to take them off in the rush to get to the O.R) ...that THAT is not good enough. I can't see how or why comatose patients have suddenly acquired or been equipped (by the sceptics) with the most extraordinary powers of extra-sensory perception. It seems as if the goalposts have been moved again.

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

1) In Parnia's study, are the potential subjects informed of the experiment before hand? Probably not if they are brought into the emergency room suffering a heart attack. In that case, it shouldn't surprise anyone that while out of the body, they are more interested in watching the operation than looking for dust on the tops of file cabinets.

2) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

3) The spirit mind is not the human brain. Visual processing is not the same in the two.

Ingo Swan wrote:

http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/2.html

Chapters 15 - 16:

"I explained the following to Dr. Osis and Janet and also to Dr. Schmeidler.
"I'm having trouble verbally expressing what I think I'm seeing. What I'd like to try to do is just sketch out what I think I'm seeing. Would that be all right?"

...

So, at the next session I was equipped with a clipboard balanced on my knees, pages of white paper, and a pencil.

...

And LO! The targets, or at least big parts of them, undeniably began appearing on the paper before me -- even if I hadn't the faintest idea of what they were.

...

My picture drawing also indicated a circle, identified as "red or pink." Inside the circle in my picture drawing I had indicated a TU or a UT thing which was black. If the UT or TU thing had been joined together by one more strokes, it would have made the number 5.
When the target tray was taken down, it did contain an off-colored red circle (of paper) in the center of which was a largish number 5.

You will note that my "perceptual mind" did not quite identify the figure of the 5, but that I got its elements. In other words, I had no cognitive idea that the figure was a 5, but I felt that my perceptual processes should have known that.

As a result of this yet ambiguous "success" I began thinking that there existed a hidden extrasensory perceptual system that functioned with rules and a logic of its own. And that THIS system functioned beneath the levels of conscious control of it.
In other words, the perceptual process was SUBLIMINAL."

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

I wonder if Parnia has researched the literature on remote viewing or anything on parapsychology?

The lack of historical knowledge is an all too common problem with paranormal investigators. They think they are the first ones to discover/investigate psi and ignore the work that has been done before their entry into the field.

To some extent that problem is caused by the lack of respect that mainstream science has for psychical research or parapsychology. No one considers that past research is worth investigating - so no one investigates it. A new investigator may think he has "discovered" something and is engaged in ground breaking research when he doing something naive that a better understand of past research might help him avoid.

For example, Gary Schwartz's early experiments on mediums would have benefited if they had been designed using the experiences of the scientists who developed the protocols for studying remote viewing. Rather than rate a psychic's perception according to similarity to the object, they let an independent judge try to match two readings to the actual objects.

How will Parnia's experiments distinguish a partial description of the target from a chance occurence?

[Michael Prescott]

"In Parnia's study, are the potential subjects informed of the experiment before hand?'

No, they're not. And probably they cannot be, since it would be ethically dubious to tell a person in critical condition that he may become the subject of a near-death experiment.

The Ingo Swann quote is very interesting. I really should read that book.