School project

An eighth grader doing a report on life after death emailed me for my thoughts on the subject. I kept my response fairly straightforward, without getting into all the complexities of super-psi, psychological issues, and the strong and weak points of the evidence. There's nothing here I haven't said before, but since I have to fill up the blog with something, here it is ...

 

Hi ___,

Thanks very much for writing. I have read a great deal about evidence for (and against) an afterlife. My personal opinion is that life after death is probable, though I would not say that it is certain. I base this opinion on my study of various lines of evidence, including near-death experiences, deathbed visions, the verifiable statements made by some mediums, verifiable past-life memories (especially when reported by young children), and some well-documented cases of ghosts and hauntings.

Those who disagree with me would point to the large quantity of evidence indicating a very close relationship between the brain and the mind. They would say that the mind cannot possibly continue once the brain has stopped functioning. My viewpoint is that the brain serves mainly as a kind of "receiver," with thoughts as the "signal." If the receiver is damaged, then the signal will not be picked up as clearly anymore. If the receiver is destroyed, then it will never pick up the signal again. But the signal itself is never damaged or destroyed. It continues, even if there is no working receiver that tunes in to it.

I admit that this is only a rough analogy, but it helps to show how the mind and brain can be very closely connected, as they undoubtedly are, and yet the mind could continue to exist even without the brain.

Of course the arguments about all of this can get very complicated, and no one can say for sure what the truth really is.

As for what I personally think happens after death, I think it's probably something like this. First you become aware of separating from your physical body, and perhaps hovering over it and looking down on it. The experience seems oddly familiar and not at all frightening or sad. You are drawn away from your body, through a dark space that may seem like a tunnel, until you reach a bright light. Entering the light, you find yourself reunited with deceased friends, relatives, even pets. You now exist on a plane of pure consciousness, where the collective thoughts of a community of like-minded souls create a realistic world, similar to Earth, but without Earth's imperfections. You undergo a life review in which you remember the key decisions in your life and how they affected other people. You even experience what those other people were feeling -- if you intentionally hurt someone, you feel the hurt they felt. In this way you learn where you made the right choices and where you made mistakes. The purpose is not judgment but learning. It's understood that life is hard and everyone makes the wrong choice sometimes.

What happens after that is less clear, but it appears that you continue to grow and learn, perhaps with other incarnations on Earth, or by progressing to higher spiritual planes.

One very important point is that suicide is not the right choice. Everything I've read tells me that people who commit suicide deeply regret it in the afterlife. They are not able to escape their problems that way. They bring their problems with them, and actually have more trouble working through their problems on the spiritual plane than they would have if they'd resolved their problems on the physical plane. And usually they learn that their problems would have been overcome on Earth if they had just held on a little longer.

Of course, people have argued about whether or not there is life after death, and what it might be like, for thousands of years. I don't think the debate will end anytime soon. My opinions could be all wrong. I think it is best to keep an open mind on the subject and to consider all points of view. 

By the way, if you're interested in a fairly dramatic case that seems to provide evidence for an afterlife, you might look at my essay on the R-101 disaster:

http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/R-101.htm

A website that offers many good cases can be found here:

http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

I hope this is helpful. Good luck with your project!

Comments

[JD]

What a brilliant, concise summary of the afterlife debates. I've always felt that you've never really mastered a topic until you can explain it, without too much detail but also without watering it down, to a young child. Obviously you have.

[postgygaxian]

It is hard to write concisely.

I particularly liked My viewpoint is that the brain serves mainly as a kind of "receiver," with thoughts as the "signal."

The obvious temptation is to sidetrack into all kinds of psi issues, but obviously that would have distracted the young student from the project at hand.

[Cyrus]

Reminds me of me. I've been into the afterlife since I was 14. Prior to that, around age 13, I was a skeptic, trying to understand the topic and basically scoffing at it. I was one of those jerks on the internet telling people they're idiots for considering any of this is real.

Then I started reading about NDEs....

[juan]

Good summary, Michael. I agree with you, because neurophysiological evidence on the close relationship between consciousness and the brain does not necessarily exclude the afterlife. The problem is that many scientists see as strong neurophysiological evidence and ignore the parapsychological evidence, which is a mistake.

But I think the parapsychological evidence is weaker than neurophysiological evidence, so we could speculate on what follows. One could accept the production hypothesis and reinterpret cases of mediumship through the super-psi hypothesis, rejecting the afterlife, instead of accepting the transmission hypothesis and interpretation of some cases of mediumship as instances of communication with the dead. Would it be reasonable this position? I think not, because such a position assumes that the production hypothesis is compatible with super-psi, which is false, because if the mind is produced by the brain, then the mind that can only access to what is mechanically connected with the brain, but this is not the case in psi phenomena. Therefore, not only the production hypothesis is incompatible with the afterlife, but also with psi, and we have very valid reasons for considering that among psi almont living is real. In contrast, the transmission hypothesis and the afterlife are not only compatible, but the afterlife is almost a consequence of the transmission hypothesis. Also the more plausible interpretation of some cases of mediumship, regardless of antecedent improbability is the communication with the dead.

So even though the parapsychological evidence is weaker than neurophysiological evidence, psychical evidence is robust enough to accept the transmission hypothesis and a kind of afterlife.

[Michael Duggan]

Juan, I have to strongly disagree with you regarding the strength of neuroscientific explanations of mind. There is absolutely no progress in understanding the hard problem of consciousness. We are no closer to cracking consciousness than Aristotle quite frankly. Yes, there is a close correlation between various brain states and dysfunctions and their resultant effects on mind but this is predicted by the transmission / filter model. I would go further, there are examples that clearly go against a production model; idiot savant syndrome, normally functioning individuals with limited brain matter, multiple personality and genius. The effects of psychedelics also point away from the production model. Rupert Shledrake has a new book coming out, The Science Delusion, that tackles some of these issues.

Excellent overview MP. When he reaches high school age he should buy this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Exploring-Mind-Brain-Relationship-Mindfulness-Behavioral/dp/1461406463

[j9]

My first communication with Michael was privately through email. I was looking for some comfort about my college roommate who died from lung cancer caused by radon exposure in her home at 40. I posed a question to Michael about, I think the aware study failing, and I love his answer. It went something like, there is enough other evidence to support the existence of an afterlife that "I wouldn't worry too much about it." I found this hilariously casual and comforting. Michael has a beautiful gift for explaining things as he sees it, clearly and honestly.

[Juan]

Michael Duggan, when I wrote that the neurophysiological evidence appears stronger than the parapsychological evidence, I wanted to say the correlation between mind and brain have been observed repeatedly and robustly over that psi phenomena, not that the neurophysiological explanation of the mind is strong. Of course the modern neurophysiology does not touch the hard problem of consciousness or other associated problems, but I think most neuroscientists can not take the hard problem as a problem, because they seem to assume that certain neural activities are accompanied by consciousness has taken as a primitive fact, without further explanation. The problem is to find out what is the relationship between neural activity and consciousness, so that while the phenomena that you write can be a problem for the production hypothesis, I believe that psi phenomena is the only kind of phenomena that clearly refute the production hypothesis and confirm the transmision hypothesis.But anyway I agree with you.

[Michael Duggan]

Thanks for clarifying. Tbh, there is a problem with a good deal of fMRI research, and most of those correlations are artifactual, although you would never know it from the glowing editorials in mainstream science magazines.

[Kathleen]

I remember seeing a television program with some interesting research about the brain. Unfortunately, it involved animal "research." (I love animals and hate to see any kind of "research" done to them.) Nevertheless, after teaching lab rats how to perform some sort of task, the researchers then "removed" a major portion of the brain, including the area thought responsible for memories. Afterwards, the animals were still able to remember how to perform the task. It reminded me quite a bit of what Jane Roberts' Seth stated, that memory is somehow even in our cells. The concept of the brain as a receiver seems very plausible to me, and now today, it's almost as if we are using the personal computer, smartphone, tablet PC, etc. as an extension of this - as another tool for our minds to use to do the "heaving lifting" and interconnect more rapidly with other minds. BTW, excellent response Michael.

[Matt Rouge]

Michael,

Excellent response. I think it was the perfect response to a child, and the points I'm about to make have more to do with the "probable but not certain" statement. A few nitpicks, if you will.

1. From a rhetorical standpoint, I think it's reasonable to say that the Afterlife is probable but not certain. To a child, especially, this emphasizes nuanced thinking. I think, however, this lets skeptics off a bit easily in that there are *phenomena* related to the Afterlife that cannot be denied or dismissed. We know what they are mediumistic communications, NDEs, deathbed visions, and so on, many with veridical elements.

Skeptics, of course, try to dismiss all of these phenomena because any one of them would be fatal to their materialistic worldview. So I would put it this way, preferably: "Based on phenomena that have been widely and continuously observed and meticulously documented for more than a century, I believe the most parsimonious, rational, and clear interpretation is that life after death exists. Even if one does not accept that interpretation, however, the individual phenomena are incompatible with a materialist-reductionist worldview."

2. The second point has to do with the word "probable." I take issue when this word is used with regard to what amount to the fundamental properties of reality. Such as when atheists say that they find the probability of God existing to be negligible. This strikes me as a category mistake. Either God exists or doesn't, or the Afterlife exists or doesn't. There is no real way of calculating the probability of such a thing being true; one can simply give arguments for or against.

Yes, in a fuzzy logic sort of way it can make sense to describe one's interior state in this way, informally. "I lean toward believing based on what I've read and experienced, but I'm not sure." Nevertheless, I think the wording I've offered above (though I'm still not satisfied with it) is more accurate on a philosophical level.

But, as I said, nitpicks.

Cheers,

Matt

[Sbu]

There is every reason to think that we eventually will be able to read thoughts directly from brain activity using techniques similar to the remarkable progress in speech recognition. I don't see how the transmission theory can be defended. Super psi Can well be a function of a living brain. I think this is Dean Radins position - psi being a entanglement mechanism in the living brain.

[Michael Duggan]

Hi SBu, being able to read brain activity and deduce thoughts just shows the correlation is reliable enough - and the associated techniques - sophisticated enough to achieve this, I would say. In my view, this doesn't trouble the transmission theory. Who can imagine what brain technology will be like in a hundred years time, but will neuroscience still explain how we experience the redness of a rose or the blueness of the sky? I Doubt it!
As for Radin, he is on record as being close to panpsychism or neutral monism (that consciousness and matter share a common source).

[Juan]

I believe that psi is incompatible with the production hypothesis, because if the mind is produced by the brain, then the limits of the mind are the limits of the material brain. But who knows which are the limits of the brain? There psi quantum theories such as quantum entanglement, but even if there is some truth in these theories, I believe that all purely physical theory of psi fails in one respect: Well, two brains are quantum entanglement and there is a case of telepathy between the individuals, but why choose this particular brain and not any other? Psychical Research has shown that psychic link are more common among people with strong emotional ties, regardless of distance and physical barriers, ie, the target is selected by virtue of its emotional charge, or put another way, by the significance for the subject. The objective is selecting semantically in psi abilities, not mechanically, but as the semantics is not something physical, all purely physical theory of psi is doomed to failure.

[Ben]

A measured summary with just the right tone, Michael; even a hardened sceptic wouldn't take offence. The internet needs more of this.

[sbu]

Hi SBu, being able to read brain activity and deduce thoughts just shows the correlation is reliable enough - and the associated techniques - sophisticated enough to achieve this, I would say. In my view, this doesn't trouble the transmission theory. Who can imagine what brain technology will be like in a hundred years time, but will neuroscience still explain how we experience the redness of a rose or the blueness of the sky? I Doubt it!

It took 3.5 billion years for intelligent life to arise on this planet. There is no reason to expect we can explain it all in 100 years. You can always modify the transmission theory in such terms that it becomes unfalsifiable - but then why not just believe in God? We don't need to invent another religion.

[Michael Prescott]

"even a hardened sceptic wouldn't take offence"

Wanna bet?

;-)

[Hjortron]

Michael,

You wrote: "One very important point is that suicide is not the right choice."

I think that's just political correctness. I've read dozens of NDE people sharing their take on this as well, and while I understand while they need to say that suicide is wrong for *some* reason, I've yet to hear an actually good argument in favor of this. Yes, you hurt those close to you, and that's a factor. You also cut short your opportunity for spiritual growth on this Earth. Those two things are granted. But taking those two facts into account, I see nothing wrong with suicide whatsoever. Enlighten me - why shouldn't we commit suicide when we want to, all things considered?

You may say that some mediums have discussed the issue of suicide with people passing over, but I would counter with NDEs where people have committed suicide and been completely loved and embraced regardless, the being of light completely understanding of why they wanted to die and the fact that they did it. Keep in mind, most people die as immature souls and leave many issues behind them - why is leaving some things behind with suicide, that is, intentionally, any less bad? I can understand mild and passing regret, but deep, crippling regret that lasts for eons? Come on! It's just one life-time and we're all loved and we have an eternity to perfect ourselves in. What's the hurry?

Additionally, NDEs often say that what matters once we're done here is not the quantity of life, but the quality of it. Regardless of how and when we die, it's how much we've grown that's going to matter, not how long we stayed. Is life really just a race to stay as long as possible, and nothing else matters? Why should it matter when we chose to leave, or that we take it into our hands? Why should suicide be viewed as more wrong than any other act out there, say, stealing, or murder, or implicitly agreeing with the value of a culture that makes entire countries suffer?

I just don't think you've really thought the issue through properly, without the bias of "it just has to be wrong". After all, as soon as you're politically incorrect on one issue (there is more likely than not an afterlife), you tend to want to be more politically correct on other issues (suicide is bad/wrong) in order not to feel like you've lost all credibility. Classic psychology.

[Matt Rouge]

The idea that suicide is an Afterlife-ruining mistake has been with us for awhile. The awful Robin Williams movie "What Dreams May Come" has the Robin Williams character's wife's suicide and its hellish consequences at the core of the plot:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120889/

Ugh, I saw that in the theater back in 1998.

I myself have heard varying things about suicide. Aside from people who commit suicide who are in horrible pain and/or dying, most people who do it arbitrarily cut their lives short and, presumably have a mess of problems that need to be solved (otherwise, why commit suicide?). Such people may not have had a very good time in the Afterlife anyway, so the question is whether suicide is a uniquely horrible act that ends up, ipso facto, getting horribly punished, or is it merely the culminating bad-vibe act done by someone who is probably not ready for the light anyway?

I don't have the answers to these questions. Suicide does, however, seem like something definitely to be avoided for a variety of reasons.

Cheers,

Matt

[Art]

In regards to suicide and why it is inadvisable:

The more pixels on a TV screen the more clear the image. Pixels are made out of information. The more information the soul gathers the more clear the image on the other side, i.e. if you cut short your stay you won't have "graduated" from the school you were sent here to attend. It's like taking a cake out of the oven before it's done. You stick a toothpick in and if comes out all "gooey" it needs to be put back in the oven till it is cooked all the way through.

And for the record I don't believe in reincarnation and believe something else is going on. Misinterpretation of the evidence. So, the idea that we can just come back and finish the job is illogical to me. And I also don't buy 85% or more of what comes through the mouths of Mediums so I take whatever they saw with a grain of salt. They are just regurgitating New Age ideas that have been around for a long time.

I think children are just "tuning" into someone else's memories till their own sense of "self" is solidified, and hypnotized adults are also just tuning into the "Akashic records." And as far as those so called birthmarks? Perhaps just thoughts are things and consciousness creating reality, matter being an epiphenomena of consciousness.

As soon as children, around the age of ~ 7 years, develop their own sense of self or identity they quit tuning into those other memories - that is unless some adult keeps egging them on and reminding them about it.

[Michael Prescott]

The most extensive source of info on suicide and the afterlife that I know of is the book Suicide by Jon Klimo and Pamela Heath. They found that suicide is generally a bad option, although not in cases where a person's quality of life had irretrievably deteriorated to an unacceptable level (e.g., chronic, incapacitating pain).

In any case, I think it's obvious that when discussing this subject with children, one should make it clear that suicide is the wrong way to go. Think about it: I have only the child's word that she is working on a school project. What if she is actually contemplating suicide and wants to know if she can expect an afterlife? If I tell her she'll be reunited with lost loved ones and there is no downside, who knows what she might do? You have to consider the consequences of your words, especially when talking to impressionable young people.

I liked parts of What Dreams May Come. The Richard Matheson novel is better. Matheson believed in life after death and included a bibliography of relevant nonfiction texts.

[Matt Rouge]

Michael,

Very good point about informing the child about suicide in that manner. You were thinking several steps ahead.

I can easily believe the novel is better. I'm not a huge Robin Williams fan. The fact that the movie treated the Afterlife seriously, however, was a plus.

Cheers,

Matt

[Juan]

Sbu

The transmission hypothesis is falsifiable because it makes some definite predictions that can be tested and in fact already been confirmed:

a) The mind can access information without resorting to the material senses at times when the mind is in touch with reality without the filter that is the brain (ESP).

b) The mind can alter the course of events without resorting to motor systems. (PK).

c) The loss of cognitive functions associated with various pathological conditions such as Alzheimer's syndrome is transient and reversible, allowing the recovery of these functions when the mind is about to dissociate the brain. (Dements patients shortly before dying regained lucidity).

d) The lucidity of the subject is enhanced when it is on the verge of death. (Lucidity in the near-death experiences).

e) As the psi is the access of the mind to the reality without passing through the brain filter, situations that compromise the association between mind and brain is correlated with enhanced psi abilities. (ESP from near-death experiences).

f) The ESP and PK replace the senses and motor apparatus in our situation in the afterlife. (Mediumship communications).

All these statements are predictions of the transmission hypothesis and all of them have been confirmed. By contrast, the production hypothesis accurately predicts that this can not happen, so if we are materialistic, why not just believe in God? It is not reasonable.

Art

If children seem to remember past lives are just tuning into the memories of certain deceased, then theoretically they could tune into the memories of anyone, but it does not, because they can only remember the life of certain deceased persons. Then the most reasonable interpretation is the reincarnation. And if you reject the reincarnation just because you do not like choosing another bizarre hypothesis, then you do not act like scientists. The scientific attitude is to choose the most plausible hypothesis regardless of our subjective tastes.

[Matt Rouge]

Art,

I believe you have said that you don't believe in free will. Hence, if someone commits suicide, then would that not be just another lesson?

Cheers,

Matt

[Michael Prescott]

Very good points, Juan.

[Bruce Siegel]

"If children seem to remember past lives are just tuning into the memories of certain deceased, then theoretically they could tune into the memories of anyone, but it does not, because they can only remember the life of certain deceased persons."

Another point that's often neglected is the healing power of past life memories. Many therapists and parents (the Leiningers, for example) describe how children who are encouraged to integrate past life memories, experience clear and often dramatic healing--psychologically and even physically. (And this is equally true for adults with past life memories.)

If these people are merely tuning into the memories of others, why would they heal?

I think this area is often glossed over because for skeptics and the poorly informed, healing can seem like such a nebulous thing. But anyone who's deeply familiar with past life research can't help but be impressed by this ubiquitous and powerful aspect of the phenomenon.

[Art]

"then theoretically they could tune into the memories of anyone, but it does not, because they can only remember the life of certain deceased persons." - Juan
-------------------------------------------

Yeah, if they had a radio dial on their forehead. Unfortunately they don't. They tune into someone's brain that happens to be close their own brain's frequency.

Reincarnation is just a made up religious belief to try and explain something we don't have a clue what is really going on. It's all speculation. A big made up story that I'm betting is nowhere near what is really going on.

[Hjortron]

Michael,

I haven't read that book, "Suicide", but I've seen the conclusion many times before (i.e., suicide is bad unless you're in chronic pain at the end of your life). I don't really see how you can differentiate between causes for suicide, though. Everyone commits it because they want whatever pain they perceive themselves to be having not worthy of sticking around for. You may say that teenagers/young adults who've had a rough life so far still have the time to change. True, but at the same time, those who are in chronic pain and don't have a future beyond that on this Earth also have an opportunity - an opportunity to learn to love their situation, despite how challenging it is, and grow abundantly in doing so. In fact, everyone of us have lots of opportunities to still make excellent use of this life, irregardless of how much or how little time we have left. So I don't see the argument that it's "OK" to commit suicide at the very end of your life, but that in your biological prime it is a sin that will make the afterlife less wonderful in the long run, as valid.

The second point you brought up is not so much a question of what's true, but a question of what we should to with the truth. You take the common-sense-of-our-time approach, in that children and teenagers shouldn't be told what we deem to be the truth on these issues. I don't see it that way. I think children and teenagers are much more capable of handling the truth than we ever give them credit for. As such, I think we can tell them honestly what we think on these topics.

We have to realize that we're talking about the real world with real consequences when we're talking about the existence of an afterlife. We cannot just say that we've concluded that there is one, and then act inconsistent with our professed beliefs on the matter. If there is an actual wonderful afterlife and everyone's invited, then death, no matter how tragic we view it now, is no longer a bad thing. It's a wonderful thing! Yes, there is sorrow for we won't reunite with the dead ones before our own time comes, so there will be those feelings of separation, but beyond that, death is the ultimate thing to ever happen to a person. You would be happy for someone else if they won the lottery, got married, had a new child or became Olympic champion. You should become even happier for someone who recently died!

Taking that into account, suicide, even if it's a teenager loved by its community, is not a bad thing. That person has simply made its own choice to move on. The loss of potential spiritual growth for that person has been cut short by its own choice, but at the same time, that person is now in "Heaven". I know it's a stigma in our society today, but that's how we need to view death in the future if it's ever to become an honest belief and be part of our way of life. The question of the empirical justification for the existence of an afterlife cannot remain an intellectual "hobby pursuit" forever, as it is right now, for then it will never be taken seriously by the public at large. We need to be honest about the actual implications, otherwise we will rightfully be viewed as not truly believing in that which we profess to believe. I really believe that this isn't like any other scientific pursuit, for it has spiritual and emotional implications - indeed, they are as grave, serious and relevant as any implications of a scientific finding ever could be. For myself, I could never claim to believe in an afterlife if I cried at funerals - and I don't. I laugh heartily and loudly at them, and smile and console those around me. Seems insane? No one has yet had a problem with it.

[Paul]

Juan

I think that obsession by spirits is an equally good explanation for many of the experiences recounted as indicating reincarnation, though not all, as evidenced in the example of the child apparently recalling his life as a WW2 pilot.

I agree that whether we like or dislike the idea of reincarnation is irrelevant.

[Michael Prescott]

Hjorton, you apparently are more certain of an afterlife than I am. As I wrote to the eighth grader, I think there is probably life after death, but I'm not sure of it.

There's also the question of hellish afterlife experiences. If some people report being in hell, or being lost and confused in an earthbound condition, then the afterlife can't be good for everyone, at least in its early stages.

Finally, I don't think the pain and grief attendant on a loved one's death can be removed simply by believing in an afterlife. That belief may help assuage the pain a little, but the pain of separation will still be there. CS Lewis believed in an afterlife, but in his book A Grief Observed he delves deeply into his own sorrow upon the death of his wife.

[Hjortron]

Michael,

I probably am more certain of an afterlife than you, yes. But how does that matter? I could have the exact same conversation with the biggest atheist out there, and he would probably agree with me: If there's a wonderful afterlife, death is a wonderful thing. If not, I'd like to hear his arguments for why this is not so, too.

I don't think hellish experiences are an obstacle to the fact that everyone's going home eventually, as many hellish NDErs either turned around after some realization (Howard Storm's NDE being the famous example), or end and the person eventually realizes that the experience made them change their lives in a good way ("that's not where I wanna be"). Maybe, some don't care about the fact that they've had hellish NDEs, and continue living bad lives. Well, that's their choice, and perhaps they aren't going straight into the light after biological death.
But consider this - even those who have only had wonderful NDEs don't necessarily deny that there are lower dimension where we may initially go after biological death if we're in a negative state of being. Virtually all of really deep NDErs say that eventually, everyone gets to come home, even if they may at first be a bit lost spiritually. And speaking reasonably, why wouldn't they? If the afterlife of infinite love that positive NDErs speak of exists, and they created the "hellish" dimension that some NDErs experience, then certainly it was for, in the end, a good purpose.

And I know, personally, that you're wrong on the last point. I really believe in life after death, as do many NDErs, and they're seldom as sad as people who don't believe when someone they love cross over. I cried at people's funerals who I didn't even really know in life before I learned that there's an afterlife, and now I don't cry at all, even when those absolutely closest to me die. But it did require for me to confront my own feelings and being honest with myself, and not just concluding that, objectively, there more likely than not is an afterlife. Professing belief, or just believing vaguely, in a wonderful afterlife may not do the trick of removing pain and relief - but being entirely convinced, and absolutely honest with all the consequences and implications that follows, certainly does.

[Art]

"As I wrote to the eighth grader, I think there is probably life after death, but I'm not sure of it." - Michael Prescott
........................................................................................

That's where I stand at this time also. I have a high degree of confidence that there is an afterlife, but it is not 100% absolutely for certain. I don't feel I'll know that till I get there. I think perhaps if I'd had a near death experience I might feel differently, but I haven't so at this point in time in my life I'm fairly certain there is an afterlife but not absolutely 100% for certain.
--------------------------------------------
There's also the question of hellish afterlife experiences."
........................................

I am somewhat perplexed by this also. I have an answer but am not completely satisfied with my own interpretation of these experiences. I think I know or understand what is going on - but feel it's possible I could be wrong about it also. I think it might be just us projecting our own fears on what is happening, or like the Tibetan Book of the Dead says "demons are projections from one's own mind." Thoughts are things and consciousness creating reality, matter being an epiphenomena of consciousness on the other side.

[Michael Prescott]

"but being entirely convinced, and absolutely honest with all the consequences and implications that follows, certainly does."

How did you achieve this state of absolute conviction?

[Juan]

Art

Unless you find reason to know why these children tune into the lives of certain deceased and no other, the hypothesis that these children were those deceased will always be more plausible.

The reincarnation is not conceptually related to religion, just historically, which can be taken as an empirical hypothesis about the universe. You write that reincarnation is all speculation, but your idea of ​​tuning is more speculative yet, because if children remember the lives of certain deceased persons, it is natural to move from memory to identity, considering that these children were those deceased persons. All paranormal hypothesis but reject the reincarnation break the link between memory and personal identity, which makes all of them are equally implausible.

Paul

It may be true that in some cases the obsession is equally plausible that the reincarnation to understand what happens, but I think most children seem to remember past lives is not so, because the obsession we have two minds in action and children who seem to remember past lives seem to show a personality unit very different of cases of possession and obsession.

[Paul]

Hi Juan
because the obsession we have two minds in action and children who seem to remember past lives seem to show a personality unit very different of cases of possession

Thanks for replying. From my reading, possession is more the extreme point of obsession. I get the impression that obsession can vary in degree from very subtle influences, through 'trance-mediumship' all the way through to outright complete control by some other entity (ie possession).

I suppose what I am suggesting, for some cases at least, is that there may be some confusion in the child's mind between its own thoughts and the thoughts and memories of some obsessing agent. A bit like the situation where some purported clairvoyants say they sometimes have difficulty distinguishing the thoughts of a communicator from their own, until they become more adept.

There are of course other cases where this wouldn't necessarily be the most logical conclusion as mentioned above.

I suspect, if we survive physical death at all, that the course of development beyond that has many potential paths including reincarnation of some form.

[Alexander1304]

I like this particular article,by Kieran Comerford,his lecture at the Unitarian Church :

http://tinyurl.com/c46ppx8

"But I have now read numerous books on the subject of what happens after death and they are remarkably consistent. Thousands of people have now told us what it is like after you die. It is worth hearing what they said as they cannot all be wrong.
Nobody has reported going to the Pearly Gates and meeting St. Peter. Nobody has talked about being judged and sent to heaven or hell. They all talk about going to a place where they are welcomed by old friends and spirit guides"

"On the subject of reincarnation, I should say that existence of reincarnation is confirmed by all subjects and I have not read of any case where its existence is denied. The purpose of life on Earth is to evolve spiritually. Each life is selected by the soul and its guides to give learning opportunities which enable the soul to perfect aspects of itself. "

[Art]

"Unless you find reason to know why these children tune into the lives of certain deceased and no other, the hypothesis that these children were those deceased will always be more plausible." - Juan
-------------------------------------

Why? Because you want it to be true? That makes no sense whatsoever. By the time these children are around 7 years old they start to forget those memories. My theory makes as much sense as reincarnation - and my theory fits in better with the "brain as reciever" theory. As soon as the child starts to develop his own sense of self they, become his own person, a separate, unique, individual, they start to forget those memories of the other person. It's like our sense of self is able to drown out the information from the other side. I keep saying the whole purpose of life is to become a separate, unique, individual. To learn what it means to be separate, what time and space look and feel like, and make memories of what it was like to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe. There is no need to come back. Everyone becomes enlightened when they enter that light. There are some things you can't learn when you are on the other side. It has to do with the physics of a holographic piece of film; the fact all the information being spread throughout the entire hologram. The descriptions of the other side by near death experiencers fits perfectly with what one might expect if heaven were the original holographic film our universe is projected from.

[Juan]

Art

The reincarnation hypothesis is more plausible than the tuning hypothesis because it is natural to think of memory as a criterion of personal identity, so the burden of proof leans more to you than to me: it is true that the advocates of reincarnation have to provide evidence for their claims, but more evidence must show that advocates of tuning hypothesis. Also, if the tuning hypothesis is true, then would not be possible for a child to tune into the memories of someone still alive? Why it has to be with someone died? The reincarnation hypothesis is clearly more plausible.

To conclude, according to you, we are here to learn what is the separation, as is living in a space-time, but you believe that a stillborn child has had the opportunity to learn all this? Clearly not, so it would deserve another chance to learn what is the separation.

[Michael Prescott]

"On the subject of reincarnation, I should say that existence of reincarnation is confirmed by all subjects and I have not read of any case where its existence is denied."

I've read channeled material that denies reincarnation, such as The Book of James by Susy Smith and The Risen by August Goforth. I'm not saying these are necessarily authoritative sources, but they do insist reincarnation is a myth.

"Nobody has reported going to the Pearly Gates and meeting St. Peter. Nobody has talked about being judged and sent to heaven or hell."

There's at least one NDE in which the person did visit the Pearly Gates. He didn't meet St. Peter but he did hear choirs of angels. See 90 Minutes in Heaven by Don Piper.

And some people do talk of being sent to hell.

I basically agree with his overall point, but not with his absolutism in expressing it.

[Bruce Siegel]

Juan said:

"we are here to learn what is the separation, as is living in a space-time, but you believe that a stillborn child has had the opportunity to learn all this? Clearly not, so it would deserve another chance to learn what is the separation."

That's a great point. Or to take it a step further, how about incoming souls who are aborted as fetuses? Have THEY had the chance to learn the lessons of physicality? If not, have they lost their one and only shot at it?

Some of Carole Bowman's cases provide evidence of aborted fetuses returning to the same, or another, womb, for another attempt at incarnation.

But at the very least, Art, I'd like to hear you address the matter of stillborns.

Art said:

"Why? Because you want it to be true?"

Can't the same question be asked of you?

"As soon as the child starts to develop his own sense of self they, become his own person, a separate, unique, individual, they start to forget those memories of the other person. It's like our sense of self is able to drown out the information from the other side."

Or, the sense of self is able to drown out memories from one's own past life. Since we don't know where or how memories are "stored," wouldn't either explanation be equally plausible?

[sbu]

Or, the sense of self is able to drown out memories from one's own past life. Since we don't know where or how memories are "stored," wouldn't either explanation be equally plausible?

Memories are stored in the brain. We know that from Alzheimers disease, but also from experiments with mouse showing that certain enzymes applied to the synapses in the brain can wipe out memory.

[Bruce Siegel]

"Memories are stored in the brain."

You may believe that, sbu. But on this blog that would certainly put you in the minority, for reasons we've discussed endlessly. And that includes Alzheimers, enzymes, and any other physical agencies you can name.

Reminds me of this quote from Stan Grof:

'"We would laugh at somebody who would try to examine and scrutinize all the transistors, relays, and circuits of the TV set and analyze all its wires in an attempt to figure out how it creates the programs."

[Paul]

If memories are only stored in the brain, and Alzheimers disease and dementia destroy them, how does one account for occurrences of lucidity in such patients just prior to death?

[sbu]

You may believe that, sbu.
Beliefs are something I exercise in Church.

If memories are only stored in the brain, and Alzheimers disease and dementia destroy them, how does one account for occurrences of lucidity in such patients just prior to death?

It's a good question. But what exactly do we mean by becoming lucid? Terminal Lucidity is the sudden arousal into lucid awareness just before the death of someone who has been unconscious or semiconscious or demented, so that they are able to greet either people around them or their deathbed visions. But to extrapolate this to the patient suddenly have their full memory and cognitive abilities again seems unfounded.

[Paul]

Well, I didn't extrapolate 'full' anything sbu - you did :) - Since you appear to accept such lucidity occurs, how does this stack up with memory being physically stored in the brain if they can greet people around them (assuming they greet them by name etc)?

This topic has been covered to some extent on this forum: A Last Look (and others)

The debate about where memories are stored doesn't appear as conclusive as you seem to suggest. I don't propose re-opening the debate here however, that there is such a debate cannot be denied.

You will also find an extensive rebuttal of this position here: Chris">http://meta-religion.com/Neurology/Consciousness/rebuttal_to_keith.htm">Chris Carter Rebuttal - if you're interested.

[Bruce Siegel]

"Beliefs are something I exercise in Church."

That's merely another belief. :o)

[Bruce Siegel]

"Beliefs are something I exercise in Church."

Are you serious about being a church-goer, sbu? If so, I'd be interested to hear what you do there. And I'm not being facetious, just curious.

Do you pray?

[Art]

"But at the very least, Art, I'd like to hear you address the matter of stillborns." Bruce
--------------------------------------------

Here's my answer. We don't live for just ourselves. It's a holographic universe remember? What that means is that everything is interconnected. ONE. We here in the physical universe can't begin to comprehend the overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness in heaven.

excerpt from Michelle M's NDE:
"I remember understanding the others here.. as if the others here were a part of me too. As if all of it was just a vast expression of me. But it wasn't just me, it was .. gosh this is so hard to explain.. it was as if we were all the same. As if consciousness were like a huge being. The easiest way to explain it would be like all things are all different parts of the same body."
http://www.nderf.org/michelle_m's_nde.htm

excerpt from Beverly Brodsky's NDE (notice how holographic it sounds):
"I was given more than just the answers to my questions; all knowledge unfolded to me, like the instant blossoming of an infinite number of flowers all at once."
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/judaism02.html

I also like this part, "I'm sure that I asked the question that had been plaguing me since childhood about the sufferings of my people. I do remember this: There was a reason for everything that happened, no matter how awful it appeared in the physical realm."

Which reminds me of Carl Turner's mystical experience: "I knew that everything is perfect and happening according to some divine plan, regardless of all the things we see as wrong with the world."
http://www.beyondreligion.com/su_personal/dreamsvisions-kundalini.htm

And what James E said he learned during his NDE, "I was not "told" anything in the light, as much as, I just knew everything there was to know. I knew why there was bad in the world, I knew why there was good, I knew that every little thing that will ever occur here, is exactly planned out, in order to bring about something else. Everything we have ever done or known or will know, is perfectly planned out and perfectly in tune."
http://www.nderf.org/james_e_nde.htm

I am of the "this Earth life is a school philosophy and I think the Creator was smart enough to where we only need go through one time." He embedded the soul's lessons in our everyday lives and it learns what it is supposed to learn whether we want it to or not.

But if you feel that you flunked grades 1-12 and need to repeat it all then by all means knock yourself out. Go back and repeat as many grades as you like. I'm betting it's unnecessary. I think the Creator of the Universe was smarter than that. Everyone becomes enlightened when they enter that light. It's a holographic universe - connectedness/oneness - all knowledge thing. We don't live for just ourselves.

excerpt from Randy Gehling's NDE:
"All at once I seemed to feel like I was a boy, a girl, a dog, a cat, a fish. Then I felt like I was an old man, an old woman - and then a little tiny baby."
http://near-death.com/experiences/animals04.html

[Art]

"Memories are stored in the brain. We know that from Alzheimers disease, but also from experiments with mouse showing that certain enzymes applied to the synapses in the brain can wipe out memory." - sbu
--------------------------------------------

How do you explain terminal lucidity? Where people who are dying suddenly get it all back right before they die? Including people with alzheimers?

"“Terminal Lucidity”? This a very rare phenomenon which happens with people who are either in a highly progressed condition of dementia (such as Alzheimer), or are suffering from mental diseases in a similar condition. It all boils down to an inexplicable lucidity during the last days or even hours before their death, although, in the case of total dementia, their brains are irreparably damaged. Al of a sudden they are completely normal again, have their full memory and cognitive qualities back, they can talk to their relatives and make arrangements with them for their funeral and division of their heritage, and so on."
http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/1743-lucid-before-death-evidence-seperate-mind.html

Then there is the case of Dr. John Lorber who studied people with practically no brain who had normal I.Q.s. One kid had an I.Q. of 126 and all he had was a thin cortex.

No brain with normal I.Q.s and terminal lucidity. Reminds me of something my mom used to say to me when I was a kid, "Truth is stranger than fiction!" Didn't believe her then but I sure as heck do now!

[Bruce Siegel]

I don't get it, Art. I don't understand what those quotes have to do with the question Juan and I asked.

"It's a holographic universe - connectedness/oneness - all knowledge thing. We don't live for just ourselves."

I understand. But you're always saying that here on Earth, our mission is to learn about separation. How can a stillborn accomplish that if he never gets the opportunity to live even a day apart from his mother?

Seems like he might need to come back again to do that, no?

Can't you see how arbitrary it is to say the soul comes here just once? If once, why not twice? Why not more?

I know you find the idea of reincarnation distasteful. Isn't it at least possible that your preference is clouding your judgement as to the reality of the phenomenon?

And by the way, that's not true for me. At the moment, I have no desire whatsoever to come back here either. But I do think that after I've had some nice r & r on the other side, I just might feel differently.

I'm at least open to that possibility, which you don't seem to be.

[Bruce Siegel]

To complete my last comment, I want to make this point really clear: based on how I feel today, and what my understanding is of life outside the physical, I would love to be able to leave my body and never return to these parts again.

If I could honestly come to the conclusion that reincarnation were a one-time thing, believe me--I'd be VERY happy to do so. And I'll bet that's true for many, or even most, of us.

But there's just way too much evidence pointing in the opposite direction for me to see it that way.

[Juan]

I'm with you, Bruce. Art has not answered the question whether children who are stillborn reincarnate, reincarnated or other possibility but to escape us. According to its own model, stillbirths should reincarnate to get a second chance to learn what living in a space-time.

[Matt Rouge]

Art,

I'm rather surprised by your saying you're not 100% certain. You usually seem quite certain about your holographic universe hypothesis.

I'm not seeing any argument on your part against reincarnation. You're simply saying that you don't like it.

The principle of parsimony, or Occam's Razor (which the skeptics love to abuse, it's true), comes into play here. If a child remembers a past life in detail, insists that he or she *was* the person, and there is a variety of other bits of evidence, then does it make more sense to say that we have a case of reincarnation or a perfect imitation of reincarnation? And what would be the difference between a perfect imitation of reincarnation and the actual thing?

Not all reincarnation memories can be explained in terms of picking the memories of others. For example, my own daughter has talked about coming here from the Afterlife. She's talked about "coming down into mommy"; i.e., remembering the actual process of incarnation. On several different occasions she's brought various memories like this that fit together. There's no way this idea could have come into her head from anywhere. So either she's remembering the actual incarnation process, or we have a world in which children just spontaneously come up with the idea of reincarnation that just happens to match accounts from NDEs, mediums, etc.

As we know from people who deny evolution, no one can be forced to connect the dots--about anything. You seem to be engaged in some serious hand-waving when it comes to reincarnation.

Cheers,

Matt

[zerdini]

Art is obsessed about the so-called holographic universe and is totally unwilling to even consider anything else that doesn't fit in with his theories or other people's NDE's.

He makes dogmatic statements for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

He doesn't like the idea of reincarnation therefore it doesn't exist.

I could go on but you get the general idea.

[Douglas]

I think reincarnation does indeed take place.

That's the simple answer. Things get complicated when you start getting into the mechanics of it:
Simultaneous reincarnation vs. linear reincarnation, or both depending on your perspective, higher/wider selves, parts of the individual residing in space-time, other parts existing outside of it etc etc.

Despite this, I think the overall concept of *multiple lives/incarnations*, however the mechanics operate, is more than likely.

I don't buy Michael's objection that it is suspicious that the concept only becomes popular during the 19th century in the west.

Yes, this is true, but it's been accepted for centuries in the east, and in fact almost became accepted in the west, i.e. the doctrines of Pythagoras etc but it was rejected as a valid concept by the Roman church.

Once the Judeo-Christian belief system was up and running, it created a wall that prevented any other theories from reaching public awareness.

It is no surprise that with the weakening of traditional religious power structures in the 18th century due to the enlightenment, that the scene was set for the 19th century mediumship movement (some say mania) that exploded into public consciousness in a flowering of creativity (and fraud).

I think it was a very necessary movement as it brought forward important truths to the western mind that had been too long neglected. Despite the distortions, fraud and misinterpretations, the movement was ultimately a success and these ideas are now in the public consciousness.

[Douglas]

oh, regarding pre-19th century concepts of reincarnation in the west, I wanted to add that as well as Pythagoras's concept of reincarnation which brought the concept to the classical mind, Caesar also talks at length about the religious practices of the Gaulish Celts and he specifically states that they believed in the 'transmigration of souls' from one body to another, and for this reason, their warriors do not fear death.

The Gaulish belief in reincarnation was so similar to Pythagoras’s idea that some classical writers like Posidonius even went so far as to suggest that the Celts had somehow got the idea from Pythagoras! Not very likely - it is more likely an indigenous belief.

So as I say, the idea was known in the western mind until the rise of Christianity. It is then suppressed until the enlightenment, when the church loses its authority. At that point these ideas re-emerge. Yes, it was the eastern variety that took hold, but only because western audiences were now receptive to it. Hindu style reincarnation would have cut no ice in 17th century Europe!

[Ulysses]

For those interested on the history of the belief in reincarnation, Charles Tart has posted Jim Tucker’s “Reincarnation Overview” in his blog here:

http://blog.paradigm-sys.com/archives/663”>http://blog.paradigm-sys.com/archives/663

[no one]

Douglas, good points on the history of belief in reincarnation.

My own research leaves me with the same perspective. Belief in reincarnation appears to be natural to humans and it is present throughout history in just about every culture; excepting that period in European history when the church imposed an inflexible and frightening control over the minds and bodies of the populace.

Islam does not rule out the concept. There are sects within Islam that even embrace it.

Traditional Judaism contains definite reincarnation, albeit in a more esoteric form than we are used to discussing. And there are/were sects that held a view of reincarnation that is, indeed, more akin to the Eastern version.

Apparently, based on Ian Stevenson's work, even people as remote as Eskimos have a long history of a well developed sense of reincarnation that is akin to the Eastern version and it plays an integral role in their spirituality.

So, yes, it seems reasonable that the Gaulish Celts most likely realized reincarnation on their own.

[no one]

Douglas, good points on the history of belief in reincarnation.

My own research leaves me with the same perspective. Belief in reincarnation appears to be natural to humans and it is present throughout history in just about every culture; excepting that period in European history when the church imposed an inflexible and frightening control over the minds and bodies of the populace.

Islam does not rule out the concept. There are sects within Islam that even embrace it.

Traditional Judaism contains definite reincarnation, albeit in a more esoteric form than we are used to discussing. And there are/were sects that held a view of reincarnation that is, indeed, more akin to the Eastern version.

Apparently, based on Ian Stevenson's work, even people as remote as Eskimos have a long history of a well developed sense of reincarnation that is akin to the Eastern version and it plays an integral role in their spirituality.

So, yes, it seems reasonable that the Gaulish Celts most likely realized reincarnation on their own.

[no one]

Douglas, good points on the history of belief in reincarnation.

My own research leaves me with the same perspective. Belief in reincarnation appears to be natural to humans and it is present throughout history in just about every culture; excepting that period in European history when the church imposed an inflexible and frightening control over the minds and bodies of the populace.

Islam does not rule out the concept. There are sects within Islam that even embrace it.

Traditional Judaism contains definite reincarnation, albeit in a more esoteric form than we are used to discussing. And there are/were sects that held a view of reincarnation that is, indeed, more akin to the Eastern version.

Apparently, based on Ian Stevenson's work, even people as remote as Eskimos have a long history of a well developed sense of reincarnation that is akin to the Eastern version and it plays an integral role in their spirituality.

So, yes, it seems reasonable that the Gaulish Celts most likely realized reincarnation on their own.

[no one]

weird....comment posted 3X. Sorry....don't know how that happened, but it's something about Ulysses' link. It didn't work for me and it resent the form associated with my comment to this blog.

[Douglas]

Perhaps it's a quantum thing ;-)

[Art]

"If a child remembers a past life in detail, insists that he or she *was* the person, and there is a variety of other bits of evidence, then does it make more sense to say that we have a case of reincarnation or a perfect imitation of reincarnation?" - matt
-------------------------------

No, because he didn't live that life. He's his own person. We are all rays shooting off that Light on the other side. We are all connected. On the other side I will know what it was like to be you and you will know what it was like to be me. I don't see reincarnation as being "life after death". If "I", Art, cease to exist after I die and am only inhabited by some kind of soul that inhabits lots of bodies then for all practical purposes the materialist skeptics have won - there is no life after death. If I only have a parasite inside my body that survives by inhabiting another body after this one dies then the person that I am today doesn't survive, only the parasite does. Reincarnation is only a made up religious belief, trying to explain something that we really don't have a clue or understanding what is going on. It's no different than all the other wacky made up religious beliefs that people have endorsed over the centuries. People make up religions based on the supernatural stuff we see happening around us - influenced by their own culture and knowledge of the times they live in. And I'm not excluding my my holographic/NDE hypothesis either.

To the best of my knowledge, from what I've read and studied for the last 11 years, at this moment in time, I have a high degree of confidence that I'm close to being correct. Am I 100% absolutely sure I'm right? No, I'm not. I might die and find out I'm way off base, but I don't think I'm too far off the mark. We'll all have to wait till we get to the other side to find out who was right and who was wrong.

But I reiterate - reincarnation is not "life after death". It's some kind of wacky parasitism theology. Like Dax on Deep Space Nine that had a worm in her belly that enhanced the lives of the aliens it inhabited.

[Bruce Siegel]

"If I only have a parasite inside my body that survives by inhabiting another body after this one dies then the person that I am today doesn't survive, only the parasite does."

Art, it sounds like you have it backwards. Reincarnation isn't about another soul inhabiting your body. It's about your soul inhabiting a NEW body. One made for the sole purpose of accommodating your soul.

Maybe that's why the concept has been so troubling for you. You've seen it as a sort of Invasion of the Body Snatchers:

""If I only have a parasite inside my body"

Somehow, you seem to identify more with your body than with your soul.

[Matt Rouge]

Art,

I get that you don't like the idea of reincarnation.

I don't see why it's not "life after death" if it does not suit your ideals. Often life right here on earth does not suit my ideals. Every night I go to sleep and enter a very different state of mind that is definitely not ordinary waking consciousness. Indeed, I have heard sleep referred to as the "little death" before.

It seems to me that, in dreaming (and often doing more than dreaming, perhaps visiting other dimensions and worlds), I am still "me" but I don't get to keep all of my experiences once I wake up, and there is a very sharp break. From the perspective of the waking self, I was "unconscious." We don't think of ourselves as having died and become new people, however, because we have continuity with our memories *before* we were asleep.

The only real reason we continue to think of ourselves as the same people all the time, at least on the surface, is because of the continuity of memory and that we feel it is so.

To reiterate, we are awake, we sleep and have a wide variety of experiences, and we wake up again getting to keep only a limited portion of our sleeping experiences (both quantitatively and qualitatively). And we do this, with rare exceptions, every day of our lives.

You could argue that this is not ideal, that this isn't real "life after sleep," since we flush so much of what we experienced during sleep. And I think you'd be right. I'd much rather have more control of my mind during sleep and be able to recall it all, or at least choose what I get to recall.

So it is with reincarnation. While we are incarnate, we get to keep very little of what we experienced in past lives and the Afterlife. It seems that, once we are in the Afterlife, we get to remember a lot more.

So you can argue that it's not ideal, but we deal with the same kind of thing right now.

Cheers,

Matt

[Art]

I know people who are absolutely in love with the idea of reincarnation. They are wedded to the idea. Actually two Christian women in their 60's who really believe in it, like reading books about it, and get all excited and their eyes light up when they start talking about.

I really don't understand this fascination with reincarnation. Why so many people have bought into it and seem so married to the idea.

I'll stick with my ideas that something else is going on. Something more profound than reincarnation. I'm betting it has got more to do with that "connectedness and oneness" thing about our universe. It's not "reincarnation" per se but something else. Something even more amazing.

[sbu]

Well, I didn't extrapolate 'full' anything sbu - you did :) - Since you appear to accept such lucidity occurs, how does this stack up with memory being physically stored in the brain if they can greet people around them (assuming they greet them by name etc)?
..
The debate about where memories are stored doesn't appear as conclusive as you seem to suggest. I don't propose re-opening the debate here however, that there is such a debate cannot be denied.

It doesn't stack up the way you present the evidence. But who knows what state the brain really is in patients who becomes lucid after a period of being semi-unconsciousness/not responding. You don't put people into a MR scanner shortly before their passing to investigate how much brain matter they got left. I don't see a basis for making any conclusion based on current research into the "terminal lucidity" phenomena.

This discussion seems to be slightly related to the reported efffect of zolpidem on some patients in pesistent vegatative state: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/sep/12/health.healthandwellbeing
Incredible this drug can turn consciousness back on in some patients until the effect of the drug wears off - but what does it mean? It could support both a production/transmission theory - but in case of the transmission theory, what does 'external' consciousness do in all those years? Why does it not detach itself - and why is the subject not aware of passing of time between awake periods?

The necessity of the more complex transmission theory seems premature to me when we haven't worked out yet what the brain really does. With that said - I don't think conscousness can be reduced to physics but I think the most reliable evidence points to it being an epiphenomena of the living brain.

Are you serious about being a church-goer, sbu? If so, I'd be interested to hear what you do there. And I'm not being facetious, just curious.

I belief that faith in God is the only hope fot the existence of an afterlife since at the end of the day there is no 'scientific' evidence of an afterlife. Since material science more or less has disproved the possibility of an afterlife within a material reality I think supernatural intervention is required to give us an afterlife. It's also part of my belief that all the traditional religions contains some aspects of the true deity behind everything.

[Juan]

Sbu

The predictions derived from the transmission hypothesis have been confirmed, as I discussed in my previous comment, however the predictions of hypothesis production have been falsified. But most neurophysiologists occupy only those phenomena that confirm their own materialistic paradigm, ignoring those phenomena that threaten the paradigm. In other words, Kuhn and scientific revolutions.

For patients in a vegetative state, we note that if the brain suppresses consciousness, then these patients may have no experience when they are in a coma, a situation very different from those who are on the brink of death and they can have experiences because the brain can no longer suppress the experience.

Is there scientific evidence of the afterlife? Depends what you mean by "scientific" because there is no evidence of the type of the hard sciences, on the afterlife, but there is evidence of the type of the human sciences on the afterlife, as observed in psychic research in the late nineteenth century: the death-bed visions, crisis apparitions, cross-correspondence, drop-in communicators, etc.. This type of evidence will not be as evidence of physics, but is still valid and rigorous evidence, indeed the only kind of evidence that we have in this area.

[Matt Rouge]

Attaining any new type of knowledge requires philosophy in addition to lab work, field work, math, and logic, since there is no cut and dried answer as to what we should believe under what circumstances. In other words, epistemology, or the philosophy of knowledge is required.

Skeptics often talk about the Scientific Method as if there is some manual that's been ratified by the Royal Society or the UN or whoever that answers these big questions. There isn't, of course. You can have all the evidence in the world, but you can't force anyone to believe anything, and several interpretations can often fit the evidence. On the other hand, you can have millions of people believing things that are not true. False negatives, false positives.

When it comes to the Afterlife or anything that violates the materialist-reductionist worldview, the skeptics attack on two levels. First, they deny every single bit of evidence. Second, they treat every interpretation of evidence that violates their worldview as prima facie false and ludicrous.

Anyhow, verifying data about the Afterlife (NDEs, mediumistic communications, etc.) is more the science part of it, but trying to put it all together is the philosophy part. And, to repeat, this is the same kind of philosophy that would be required in connecting the dots in astronomy or quantum mechanics or anything else. Ultimately, it comes down to creating a story about how things work that makes sense. Even the hard sciences have to do this.

When it comes to certainty about the Afterlife, absolute or otherwise, I'm not sure that this is possible on a philosophical level. The reason is that we are not in control of the matter. Death, by definition, is the total absence of control in this life, so we are in effect asking what kind of control we have after losing all of the control that we understand. And we have no control of that! If it is to come, it is to be granted from outside ourselves, just as the beating of our own hearts takes place in us but is not within the scope of our control.

Although I believe life after death is real, I still don't find that total lack of control appealing. And this discomfort extends to many aspects of existence (such as sleep, which I mentioned above).

Cheers,

Matt

[no one]

Matt, I think some yogis have proven they can exercise control over autonomic functions, like the heart beat as well as aspects of sleep and, according to more anecdotal reports, death itself (e.g. the time and place of death, the manner of death and, supposedly, the after life aspects of death as well)......just saying.

But your points about the scientific methos, I mean method, are right on. I am always amused by the tortured contortions scientists go through in order to continue support of the "big bang" theory. It's really getting ridiculous. Now the universe is both expanding and contracting. It's infinitely old and very young at the same time. Whatever. Like you said, it's just a story.

Your point about "control" is very insightful. IMO, most people fear loss of control above and beyond everything else. We deal with that fear in some basic ways; one of which is to simply avoid fear inducing thoughts involving what we cannot control and to focus obsessively on aspects of life over which we have demonstrable control.

[Michael Prescott]

"there is no evidence of the type of the hard sciences, on the afterlife, but there is evidence of the type of the human sciences on the afterlife, as observed in psychic research in the late nineteenth century: the death-bed visions, crisis apparitions, cross-correspondence, drop-in communicators, etc."

That's a very good point, Juan. It's easy to forget that not all of science is patterned after physics and chemistry. Research into life after death is more like field anthropology. A field anthropologist cannot reproduce his results in a lab, and his reports may be influenced by bias or poor observation. There is an unavoidable element of subjectivity in such reports. Nevertheless, field anthropology is still science, and the reports of field anthropologists, when properly peer reviewed, can give us valuable insights into other cultures.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

In the days when I participated in discussions at the Free Thought and Rationalism Forum (http://www.freeratio.org), there was another member who would argue against the production theory of mind on the strength of evidence from neuroscience alone. The core of his argument was that we have a good understanding of how the brain works, but no idea at all of how it produces the mind. He even offered a challenge to other participants to point out genuine mysteries about the workings of the brain, asserting that he will be able to explain 90% of them based on his knowledge of neuroscience. The challenge had a few qualifiers, the most important being that one mustn’t confuse the brain with the mind and ask how the workings of the brain result in mental functions.

The bottom line was that, if we have good understanding of how the brain works, and the brain produces the mind, then we should be quite far along with our understanding of how it does that. Since we have but no idea at all, our assumption that the mind is produced by the brain must be at fault.

I can dig up some of these discussions if anyone is interested, though they make for lengthy and somewhat haphazard reading. In any event, I found it refreshing to see that one could argue against the production hypothesis to good effect by relying exclusively on evidence from the field of study that is usually marshalled as the strongest support for the production hypothesis.

[Art]

I like Victor Zammit's comparison that "life after death" is like a jury trial with witnesses. Enough of them tell the same story and you see comparisons in their story and you begin to see the big picture.

I also like the idea that life after death is like a puzzle with lots of different pieces and when you step back and view the whole thing a beautiful picture emerges.

And I still think it's amazing how when I read some NDEs how some things they say sound so "holographic" to me.

[Juan]

It is interesting what you write, Hrvoje, but I believe that the strongest evidence against the hypothesis of production are psi phenomena. A problem with your argument could be that is an argument from ignorance: be denied that we have a good understanding of how the brain works, so they could still maintain a promising materialism. On the other hand, the argument about the psi phenomena is not an argument from ignorance, because it relies on the consequences of each hypothesis: if the production hypothesis is true, then the mind can only access to reality through the brain, however if the transmission hypothesis is true, then the mind can go directly to the reality without resorting to the brain. The psi phenomena seem a direct access of the mind to reality, then the transmission hypothesis is confirmed.

[sbu]

Juan - The mind can access information without resorting to the material senses at times when the mind is in touch with reality without the filter that is the brain (ESP).

but I believe that the strongest evidence against the hypothesis of production are psi phenomena

Juan - nobody has proposed a mechanism for how psi works. Therefore you can't conclude that a living brain isn't a prerequisite for psi phenomenas and therefore you can't on this basis favor the transmission theory over a production theory.

Dean Radin is trying to suggest Quantum Entanglement to be involved. But quantum theory is at the end of the day a material science - the description of expected position, moment and angular movement of quantum-scale particles.

[Douglas]

Has anyone read the interview with Eben Alexander on Skeptico:

http://iands.org/news/news/front-page-news/802-excellent-interview-with-eben-alexander-on-skeptiko.html

He was a hard core self confessed 'reductionist materialist' neuro-surgeon who took the 'production model' as a given. However, he later went on to have a very deep NDE.

He has now completely reversed his position. He is familiar with all the usual production model theories as he used to promote them himself, but he now admits that they all fall short for him once he actually experienced an NDE.

Interestingly, however, he does suggest that one really needs to experience the widened perception offered by the deep NDE experience to *grasp* at a fundamental level why any production model falls short. As a result of his life changing experience, he is now of the conviction that the production model is quite simply wrong.

He also admits that many in the scientific/medical community, like himself at the time, actually did not spend the time to look at any evidence that might suggest alternatives to the standard materialist argument. It wasnt that there was no evidence, it's just that they already decided that it wasnt worth reading - an interesting expose of the mindset.

A lot of the transcript is hard to read, partly because it may be a bad transcript, but also because you get a real sense that he's struggling to put into words experiences which are quite simply beyond human expression.

[Alexander1304]

sbu:"I belief that faith in God is the only hope fot the existence of an afterlife since at the end of the day there is no 'scientific' evidence of an afterlife. Since material science more or less has disproved the possibility of an afterlife within a material reality I think supernatural intervention is required to give us an afterlife."

There was materialistic biologist Gerhard D.Wassermann(1919 - 2004),who wrote the book "Shadow Matter and Psychic Phenomena".He explained how psi/survival is compatible with mechanistic materialism,invoking the concept of shadow matter.But it 20+ years pssed since he published his theory,and it is almost not mentioned today.This theroy is very speculative,to my opinion.

[Matt Rouge]

Douglas,

Yes, I read that. Absolutely fascinating.

Matt

[Alexander1304]

Michael,You responded to my previous post by stating that there is some channeling information that deny reincarnation.Since You are familiar with channeling litarture much more than myself,my questions are:
1.Are there also channeling messages that confirm reincarnation.What is more: confirmation or denial.
2.Do channeling messages say something about existence of the Higher Power?
Thank You

[Michael Prescott]

1. Yes, there are many channeling messages that confirm reincarnation, and at least in recent years they greatly outnumber the anti-reincarnation messages. The situation was different in the early years of mediumship, however. It's interesting that Swedenborg (18th century) never hints at reincarnation, as far as I know. The 19th century mediums also were generally silent about it. After Madame Blavatsky started popularizing the subject, it gradually became more of a feature of spiritualist thinking and of channeled messages.

2. Yes, many channeled messages insist there is a Higher Power. Maurice Barbanell's purported spirit guide Silver Birch, for instance, talked a lot about the "Great Spirit."

[Alexander1304]

Thanks,Michael
I forgot to ask what channeled messages say about "higher planes"?As far as I know Swedenborg didn't hint at reincarnation,but talked about "higher planess" - is that correct?

[Juan]

Sbu

It is true that psi phenomena are not the definitive refutation of the production hypothesis and verification of the transmission hypothesis, because definitive refutations in empirical science are impossible, but you have to admit that psi phenomena are best suited for the transmission hypothesis that the production hypothesis. Besides the transmission hypothesis can explain both psi skills as phenomena on the afterlife.

About Dean Radin and quantum entanglement, I wrote that while there may be some truth in these physical theories, a purely physical theory of psi is impossible, because even though we do not know the mechanism of psi, we know that the target in psi abilities is semantically selected, not mechanically, and no place in physics to the semantics.

[Marthacd]

I read through these posts rather quickly and I did not see the terms I googled to find this page but I am in the right place. I have always been interested in what makes us who we are. There have been ongoing arguments for many decades about how much of who we are is nature and how much is nurture.
Stories of twins, separated at birth raised in two different parts of the country by families of different religions and ethnic groups finding incredible similarities despite entirely different upbringing point a lot to nature (genetics). A sense of self worth and ability to achieve can come largely from nurture: what you learn about the world and yourself from those around you. The existence of idiot savants is puzzling, neither seems to explain it. The same with cases of multiple personality, usually those so severely traumatized, they shrink inwardly. Here is another puzzler: I have known a friend of my son since she was in her late teens. Born of nominally Catholic parents who came from two different South American countries and of Spanish, African and Indio heritage, she is a bright, delightful kooky free spirit. Suddenly, out of the blue, she heard of cabalistic Jewish sects and overnight she knew this is what she wanted. Many years have passed. She is now married and living in Israel in a very Orthodox Jewish life style and feels very fulfilled. Environment or heredity? Add this puzzle: I have recently read about identical twin boys, raised together where one became transgender at an early age and the other is "all boy". Environment or heredity? Or is there a third factor which we have not learned how to measure or detect but exists, just the same. Can some form of existence after the body is gone have found a new home? Does anyone know of any other phenomena which fit in? Things that can not be explained by environment (at least not the 3 space,1 time dimensional environment) or by heredity?
PS: the terms I googled were: "idiot savant", " multiple personality" and "paranormal".
PPS Absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence.
PPPS My own beliefs: when it comes to the god of Abraham and conventional Judeo Christian Islam beliefs I am 99.99999...% sure these are myths. As to some kind of creator, who knows, we may be the equivalent of some immature n-dimensional being playing with Legos or a seventh grade science project. Or not. Conjecture is amusing. I believe that if there is an afterlife it is a natural phenomenon.

[Michael Prescott]

"I forgot to ask what channeled messages say about "higher planes"?As far as I know Swedenborg didn't hint at reincarnation,but talked about "higher planess" - is that correct?"

I could be wrong, but as I recall from reading Swedenborg a few years ago, he thought that souls went to the appropriate spiritual plane and remained there without further advancement. I don't think evolutionary development was part of his thinking. But I'm not an expert on his work.

[sbu]

It is true that psi phenomena are not the definitive refutation of the production hypothesis and verification of the transmission hypothesis, because definitive refutations in empirical science are impossible, but you have to admit that psi phenomena are best suited for the transmission hypothesis that the production hypothesis.

I don't follow you. You want to explain something we don't understand (psi) with something else we don't understand either (external consciousness substance that can be transmitted to a living brain in an unknown way). I don't see you explain anything in that way.

On top of this you have all the evidence from neuroscience stacked up against you, including memory erasing diseases like Alzheimers and the fact that there is a corellation between your thinking and blod flows in the brain as proved with fMRI scans.

[Douglas]

sbu, I don't see the evidence from neuroscience being 'stacked up' against anyone. The neuroscience evidence can be explained by transmission theory OR production theory quite easlily, depending on your preference.

In order to come to a conclusion as to which theory is more likely, I think we have to widen the context. My reading of the available evidence points me to transmission theory being more likely.

I should also add that my own personal experiences have empirically revealed an extensive non-physical reality that convinces me that science has only scraped the surface in its efforts to explain reality.

For me, empirical observation/experience beats anything else every time. That's not to say i've proved it scientifically - I can't as I can't repeat my experience on demand or give instructions to others in order to replicate, but I have proved to me personally due to my own empirical experience. I can't speak for you of course. Ultimately, reading other peoples' theories and experiences is fine, but really you need to get some personal experience to get a handle on this stuff.

[Juan]

Sbu

If I try to explain something unknown, psi, by something equally unknown, the nature of the transmission of the mind through the brain, you also try to explain something unknown, psi, with something equally unknown, how the brain produces consciousness. So this argument is invalid because the argument can be applied to us, throughout explanation besides there is always something that is unexplained, unknown, because that fact must be taken as primitive.

The question is taking into account all available evidence, both neuroscience and parapsychology and psychical research, what are the most plausible hypothesis? The transmission hypothesis best fits the parapsychological evidence and the production hypothesis fits better with the neurological evidence, but the situation is symmetrical? No, because the transmission hypothesis explains both the neurological evidence as parapsychological evidence, whereas the production hypothesis is almost refuted by the parapsychological evidence.

On diseases such as Alzheimer, we see that if the brain is partially destroyed, then the patient may not have access to the memory or memories may have been destroyed, so the situation is explained by the transmission hypothesis or the production hypothesis. But it's funny you mention this idea against the transmission hypothesis, because demented patients who recognize their loved ones shortly before his death at first glance confirms the trasnmission hypothesis and falsifies the production hypothesis, because if the memories are produced by the brain, then destructive diseases such as dementia would destroy these memories and would be unrecoverable. That memories can be recovered is a consequence of the transmission hypothesis.

Apart from the transmission hypothesis, we have reliable evidence of the existence of an energetic vehicle that would be the vehicle of consciousness after death, the so-called astral body, as we see in books like The Enigma of Survival of Hornell Hart, which refutes the idea that the organic body is the only vehicle of consciousness.

[Bruce Siegel]

Michael, I hope you don't mind. I'm going to link to a long comment I just posted on Skeptiko. It's in response to a poll about how certain we feel about psi, but I used it to also address the question you raised here about the likelihood of life after death. I'd really like to share it with you and others on this blog.

It's at, or near, the bottom of this page:

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/1757-forum-poll-how-sure-do-you-feel-psi-phenomena-exists-18.html

[Matt Rouge]

Read your comment, Bruce. Good stuff!

[Bruce Siegel]

Thanks, Matt!

[Matt Rouge]

OK, gonna try to make this *not* TL;DR, unlike most of my posts here.

Here is a link about Edward Cayce's view on how body and spirit connect. I think he's basically right, which means that the production and transmission theories are both partially right and wrong.

http://www.creativespirit.net/henryreed/study_intuition/library/article15c.htm

In short, there is a spirit body that mirrors the physical body, and it is this spirit body that lives after death and is receptive to psi. The transmission theory is correct in that the physical body and the spirit body are connected, and the body in a way "transmits" the spirit body. The production theory is correct in that the person develops as the body develops.

To add in my own speculations, I think spirit body is similar to how Aristotle conceived of the soul (though he did not believe it immortal): it is the "form" of the body, the "fact of the matter" of the body, the information content of the body. I believe that information is never destroyed; aka, the Akashic record.

My personal guess is that the brain does not store memory but is coded to access personal experiences as they are recorded in the Akashic record. The spirit body never loses this access. This explains things like Alzheimer's and why the brain loses access to memories and also explains why they can come back during death-bed lucidity: the person is half out of the physical body at that point and is able to access memories directly through the spirit body.

I think the raw transmission theory has several big flaws. It doesn't explain why we develop as people as the body develops and why we develop into individuals. It doesn't explain why we feel that we are in body and not the spirit that is being "downloaded." The spirit body theory solves this because the spirit body mirrors the body.

Cheers,

Matt

[no one]

Bruce, I like your skeptico comment too. You are indeed a "good soul" as someone there said.

I am glad, Matt, that you are sufficiently fair and balanced to comment that both transmission and generation are operating.

I would place a 75/25 emphasis on tansmission/generation. However, I would say that the weighting can change depending on what aspects, or levels, of consciousness we are talking about.

Then again, I can also see it from 100% transmission perspective with the brain or physical only appearing to be involved in generation due to its intense filtering capacity.

In this light, to address what you see as "big flaws", we develop as individual people as the body develops because a) the receiver becomes more capable of receiving normal human bandwidths and the nuerology becomes more capable of coordinating increasingly complex responses to what has been received. Individuality would be largely learned as the historic ego is taught to filter through the various reward/punishment schemes societaly built into its experiences. In other words, what appears to be generated individualization is really an adaptive strategy for dealing with energies and signals from the exterior world.

Or, in yet other words, the receiver is set, increasingly over the course of a person's development, to pick up only signals coming over society approved frequencies. The few stray unapproved waves that sneak through, combined with receiver system idiocyncracies in volume and clarity and such, are what creates variation that we call an individual.

I have difficulty seeing receiver idiocyncracies as true generation.

The again, it is interesting that birth marks are thought to be signs of trauma in a previous life. This, alone, would tend to show that Cayce had a point. If a physical trauma can impact the psychic (or astral) body to the point where the impact carries over to the next physical body, then a physical/astral feed back loop must be in play.

rambling man.............

[Bruce Siegel]

Thanks, no one!

[Matt Rouge]

no one,

Right. We agree that both transmission and production are going on, and I'm sure the mechanics of how both work are exceedingly complicated. All I can say is that I don't think either one can 100% explain all the phenomena.

Cheers,

Matt

[no one]

agreed Matt...there is a feedback loop. IMO, receiver is still primary. But that's just me and my prediliction.

As it is late and my brain is fried from doing year end financial prep modeling builds for 16 hours straight......I can't eloborate on my own thinking.....I am sensing a problem for philosphers and religious folks. If the generator aspect is able to hold substantial sway over the receiver aspect, then what happens to free will, responsibility and all of that? I mean, hey, it wasn't my fault I (insert vile criminal act), it was in the DNA. I'm just a defective unit in need of replacement or removal from the societal machine or a little medication to balance the old circuits. I'm not evil or even bad.......but everyone talks about good people, evil people...it almost implies recognition of a receiver willfully tuning to some good magik or bad juju.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Bruce Siegel:
For me, the important question is not "Is psi real?" but "Do we survive death?"

The question of life after death really engaged me until a couple of years ago. Now I consider it almost irrelevant. What engages me instead is the question of how to live here and now. I find that the matter of survival after death has almost no bearing on this.

[sbu]

Matt - I think the raw transmission theory has several big flaws. It doesn't explain why we develop as people as the body develops and why we develop into individuals. It doesn't explain why we feel that we are in body and not the spirit that is being "downloaded."

I completely agree with you on this Matt. I got two small children myself, and watching them grow and their consciousness evolving doesn't fit at all with the transmission theory. Consciousness and awareness starts and grows with the body.

I also think that the transmission theory has a major problem with the evolution of life from single cells to what we are today.

[no one]

I disagree to extent with what you have said re; children, etc SBU. I think it is reasonable to say that the receiver isn't going to work properly until all the wires and other circuitry (meaning nervous system, learned muscle control, etc) has formed.

[Sbu]

So the ability of external consciousness to retrieve memories that are one week old rather than one day depends on the development of the brain? There is a logical flaw here. . .

[Douglas]

SBU, if the brain is a filter, it is also a constantly developing filter - it is a two way process with info going in both directions.

Have you have ever considered the possibility that it is the experience of BEING a child that is important - the brain filter operates throughout our lives to allow us the full human experience. It modulates awareness.

[no one]

SBU, I have to download software updates to my computer to be able to view everything that is available on the internet.