IMG_1216 BW small
Blog powered by Typepad

« Missing brains, Little Nell, and another reason to hate air travel | Main | Touched by an angel »

Comments

I think you handled that interviewer with supreme class. He tried, to no avail, to mirror your mind and get you to trip on your own thoughts. Little did he know how well you knew his game. Bravo, Mr. Prescott. I loved your answers.

An interesting, honest piece Michael. The format made me chuckle. For some reason your opening line reminds me of that episode of the The Simpson's where Homer, having been blessed with the opportunity to work from home, comes to find the arrival of the mail positively exciting. Nevertheless the pretend interview served its purpose well! I bet a few years ago you would not have predicted your future self, not only accepting life after death, but using the controversial F word too.

I trust you will not censor the details of why 30,000 kids die every day. Certainly their spirit life should be scientifically studied!
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty/death/

Michael Prescott what do you believe are the best areas of evidence for the survival hypothesis?

Excellent, well spoken and from the heart.

A bit of a difference of opinion on my part; I don't have faith because, for me, that requires trust, trust requires a personal relationship that I've seen is worthy of trust and that I don't have. Conviction I can base on evidence that doesn't have to be 100% certain for me to accept and the evidence is very good.

>what do you believe are the best areas of evidence for the survival hypothesis?

NDES, children's spontaneous recollections of past lives, and the better documented cases of mental mediumship, including the cross correspondences.

On a slightly lower tier, I would put "crisis apparitions," hauntings, OBEs, and after-death communications, including induced after-death communications.

Lower still (meaning I think there is probably some evidence here, but not a lot) would be EVP, ITC, materialization and direct voice mediumship, and hypnotic regressions to past lives. (I may be wrong about direct voice; I don't know much about it. What I've heard - e.g., Leslie Flint's tapes - sounds fishy to me.)

I've probably left something out. There are a lot of different lines of evidence.

I think the strongest would be Drop-in Communicators, Cross Correspondences, Past-life recollections of children and Mental mediumship experiments, Electronic Voice Phenomena/Instrumental Transcommunication.

Some weaker but still pretty strong evidence Deathbed visions, Some evidential cases of Automatic Writing, Xenoglossy, Some good cases of Poltergeist activity, Induced After Death Communications, also the best cases of Physical Mediumship, Direct Voice Phenomena, The Scole Experiments,Nde's, Obe's

Even weaker still but still some evidence here is Crisis Apparitions, Apparitions in haunted houses, Sponteanous Cases, Some good photographic evidence for ghosts, Proxy-Sittings

I would appreciate a statement from Michael Tymn about the evidence for the survival hypothesis. Otherwise I highly recommend the following website: http://www.thesurvivalfiles.com/.
Here are the best cases from different areas discussed.

I trust you will not censor the details of why 30,000 kids die every day. Certainly their spirit life should be scientifically studied! - drew hempel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no death. Death is an illusion. We are spiritual beings here to have a physical experience. Once that experience is done our soul is ready to pass back on into the Spiritual Universe. The soul comes here just long enough to learn what it means to be a separate, unique, individual which it does by experiencing duality and separation, and experience time and space, and make memories of what it was like to live in a 3D + 1T Universe. Those children die so their loved ones that are left on earth can experience separation, which is one of the main reasons "why we are here." but, I reiterate.... there is no death. Only the physical body dies. The soul is immortal.

The soul will use the memories it learns while in the physical body --- in Heaven to create it's own reality because heaven is a place where thoughts are things and consciousness creates reality and where matter is an epiphenomena of consciousness.

But the wonderful thing is that in Heaven you'll be able to experience any of those time periods that you mentioned and learn what it was like to be a dinosaur just by thinking about it. There is no time in heaven and because of that sense of oneness and connectedness you'll be able to go back and experience being anything you want to.

Excellent, Michael. Thanks for sharing this.

Michael, I agree with all the other comments. Excellent interview. And, I'm flattered that someone would ask for my opinion.

My opinions are pretty much the same as yours, except that I place a higher value on the direct voice phenomenon. To quote Sir Oliver Lodge when asked for his opinion on the best and most evidential form of mediumship:

“The direct-voice seems the clearest intermediate phenomenon – a voice produced in the air independent of the medium’s normal mode of utterance, and saying things outside his or her normal knowledge. From one point of view it is physical – there are undoubtedly vibrations of the air that might be recorded on a gramophone; from another point of view it is psychic, as the if the utterances were produced by some person, dead or alive, but, anyway, not present in the flesh.”

Another estimable posting, Michael. It seems that, during the numerous admirable blogs you've posted on the subject of consciousness and its continuance, you've managed to emphasize the limitations of the scientific method when applied to such difficult questions. Often, when dealing with a subject like the survival of mind after physical death, the concept of "faith" is inevitably offered as the cause for such a belief, regardless of any religious or spiritual convictions on the part of the believer. But those who are steadfast proponents of "scientism" fail to see their own leap of faith in assuming that the scientific method is the only "true" path to understanding and enlightenment. You cogently pointed out a notion that I've stressed for many years: that our feelings, our emotions and opinions and tastes CANNOT be reduced to mathematical formulae or quantified for a graph to be included in some cosmic Powerpoint presentation. And it is our emotional being which is at the core of the human experience, and thus unable to be approached by science. Perhaps, someday, a computer program will pass the Turing Test and be able to simulate "love", but it will never be able to FEEL it.

To close, let me say that one of the best qualities of the continuance of consciousness post mortem is that we collectively do not lose the benefits of an honest and sincerely questioning soul such as yours, Michael. I've no intent to embarrass, but we would all be bereft if souls such as yours were not in existence to stimulate us all. Thank you.

Wow. Thanks!

I don’t know if you mentioned this in your answers but for me these spiritual laws that I read about and even sometimes experience are visible to us if we look deeply into societal and human behavior.

I think someday future generations will smile in disbelief that we actually thought that chance, luck, natural selection, and some random variation set this universe and life forms capable of learning these universal laws into motion.

If we remove our perception of time as a significant variable, karma is one example of this universal/spiritual perfection in action.

If we remove our perception of time as a significant variable, karma is one example of this universal/spiritual perfection in action. - william
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Karma" has a very "holographic" flavor to it. It's similar to the life review in NDE's where people feel what the other person felt while they interacted with them. "Instantly becoming everyone you came in contact with in your entire life (feeling their emotions, thinking their thoughts, living their experiences, learning their motives behind their actions)." http://near-death.com/experiences/research24.html
I've also read many verses in the New Testament that also seem to have that same "holographic flavor" about them.
"You reap what you sow." (Sounds like Karma doesn't it?)
"Judge not that you be not judged for in each measure that you judge you shall be judged in return."
"Do unto other as you would have them do unto you."
and of course "God is Light" (from the book of John).

Thank you Michael Tymn and also Michael Prescott for these personal views. Also I am still sceptical about OBEs (they are some sort of evidence, but still too bad understood), I personally agree with other conclusions, which are also discussed in IRREDUCIBLE MIND.

Bravo,
I also agree. I don't think any scientist who is honest with himself/herself can claim to know how the laws of the universe was here ready, when it was born. I would also like to claim, believe it or not, there is a great deal of evidence for haunting. Something is going on in certain places that can not be explained and there is now evidence poring in. We need to open the dusty closets of the Scientific mind around our world and let them know they can ask questions about this subject and others without loosing research money or chance at a job. We need to encourage more out of the box thinking in all of the disciplines if we are to face the challenges change the course of humanity. We do this by taking the sigma away from the possiblity it may exist.

Joseph Capp
UFO Media Matters


UFO Media Matters

Art this holographic flavor could be due to the universe being this isness/oneness/absolute and karma is an aspect of that oneness.

Stated another way karma is not a design but an expression of this oneness.

This is one reason I have never been a big fan of the term intelligent design. From my point of view at this time reality is pure awareness (isness) and consciousness is perceived reality due to our “lack of knowing” perfect reality.

Maybe better terms might be intelligent expression/ unfoldment/manifestation.

I had looked at karma as a perfect system that allows us to learn when we do not demonstrate divine intelligence and love in action (compassion).

Example: Germany when it invaded other countries during World War II later it was invaded, conquered, and paid a heavy price for its aggression and lack of compassion for others.

So maybe karma is feeling what others feel to learn from experience. I suspect the Germans were feeling the pain and suffering when allied planes were bombing them that other European countries had felt when the Germans had bombed them.

Excellent "interview", or should I say introspection. Michael, thanks for this very honest Q&A session, which really sounds like you are "channeling" your own Higher Self.

"Science is a method, and a very useful method..."

What method? Check out Feyerabend's famous essay:

http://www.galilean-library.org/feyerabend1.html

Michael I saw this comment on Dr.Dean Radin Blog here it is

Mark Szlazak said...

"Book Surgeon", what is a myth is that we only use 10% of our brain. One can do a quick check by Googling "we use 10% of our brains myth" and then do some follow up. One can see this is a myth because it doesn't take much damage to a brain to cause big problems. When an area of the brain is damaged then some aspects of mind are gone forever. Sometimes this may not be the case because of redundancy or overlap in function.

Also, I don't see why knowledge gained by mediums casts any greater doubt on the concept of brain being the sole generator of mind than knowledge gained about Chinese cooking gained by reading a cookbook. Psi does nothing to cast doubt on the brain being the sole generator of mind but does cast doubt that the brain only gathers information from the conventional senses.

"Book surgeon" and Dean Radin, I don't see the receiver model and the generator model as competing explanations. There is no where to look for explanations of an independent mind if you view the brain as a receiver. In fact the receiver idea is not an analogy for the brain since we know that things are receivers because we know where to look for transmitters and understand how these things work. We have a lot of knowledge and explanations about the causes of independent transmitters. We don't have anything like this for mind but we only have evidence for minds dependent on brains and minds evolving with brains. There isn't a shred of good evidence that mind is somewhere else apart from the brain. Receiver analogies fail because they are very incomplete in just the important ways that would make them good analogies. What's a brain-generating-mind minded person to do?

>Also, I don't see why knowledge gained by mediums casts any greater doubt on the concept of brain being the sole generator of mind than knowledge gained about Chinese cooking gained by reading a cookbook.

If the medium's mind uses super-psi to gather the info, then this objection could be correct. On the other hand, if the medium is obtaining info from the departed themselves, then the mind must be able to survive the death of the brain. So it all comes down to whether or not to endorse the super-psi hypothesis.

>There isn't a shred of good evidence that mind is somewhere else apart from the brain.

I think there's a mountain of evidence, presented most exhaustively in Irreducible Mind.

"It sounds as if you're against science."

I was reading fine until I reached this question above. It struck me as very unnatural because the earlier text does not sound to me as "against science" at all. Science promotes skepticism, including of course, that towards the scientific method. Any beliefs that put themselves into equally rigorous criticisms are certainly welcomed by scientists.

>I was reading fine until I reached this question above.

Blame the interviewer. He's an idiot.

"Psi does nothing to cast doubt on the brain being the sole generator of mind but does cast doubt that the brain only gathers information from the conventional senses."

We can't even define "mind" in the first place. The conceptual problems haven't been sorted out so we can't really come to any conclusions.

There's no shame to believing in life after death based on available evidence. Massive religions are derived from belief based on mere books written by medieval prophets, to me belief based on real events is quite refreshing (Sort of like how I believe in global warming, despite critics, based on the evidence, so I make changes in my life to help the problem, like I've shut down my backyard styrofoam burning company.)

I'm personally excited about death (once I'm good and old and it's my time to go, obviously). If nothing else, fear of death is a huge problem. I don't believe in excessive mourning at funerals and I definitely don't believe in having an unhappy lifestyle based around death-paranoia. People need to just chill-out. Death is more than likely the same as every experience we dread (like surgery, etc)-- we are petrified up until it actually happens, then we think "You know what, that really wasn't so bad! Why did I waste so much time worrying about it?"

I'm putting my money on the notion that in a hundred years from now, I'll be thinking that same thing, as usual...

"If nothing else, fear of death is a huge problem."

I don't think the issue is death per se. I think people's fears are tied into questions about the ultimate significance of their actions. To put it crudely, is life just about eating, pissing, shitting, fucking, etc. or is there something more?

Amen, Cyrus. That's true in every area of life: the anticipation of something is always so much worse than the actual event.

By the way, the "Book Surgeon" in the posting on Dr. Radin's blog is me. Mark Salazak is a particularly bloviating, know-it-all skeptic who loves to pontificate, so I don't give much weight to what he says anyway. We all got sick of him on that blog, Radin included. He shut down a threat because he got tired of the guy badmouthing the Dalai Lama, of all people.

Anyway, as MP pointed out, his points are very well refuted in Entangled Minds. By the way, as I'm finished reading my copy of this challenging but brilliant book, I'm happy to send it to anyone who wants to take it on. Any takers?

>>To put it crudely, is life just about eating, pissing, shitting, fucking, etc. or is there something more?

In a sense 'we' are here despite all the eating and shitting.
Maybe the 'something more' is the evolution of the spirit. So it's not so much what you do that makes the ultimate difference it's how your inner self deals with what you do.

It appears that practical inner exploration skills (meditation etc) are essential to gain control of this bio-robotic body/brain and to use it to facilitate awareness of other dimensions including death. It seems the more we can control our inner selves the easier it will be to negotiate the hurdles of death and rebirth etc.

and as MP says if this is all nonsense we won't know.
It's win/win.

To put it crudely, is life just about eating, pissing, shitting, fucking, etc. or is there something more?
--------------------------------------------
In a sense 'we' are here despite all the eating and shitting. Maybe the 'something more' is the evolution of the spirit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All the things mentioned above imprint on the soul the parameters of what it's like to live in a 3D + 1T universe. What it's like to be "inside" a physical body. Sex is just one of the ways we experience duality and separation. The endless coming together and splitting apart imprint on the soul what it means and how it feels to be a separate, unique, individual, something that may be very difficult due to the overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness. If heaven is a place where thoughts are things and consciousness creates reality and the soul creates it's own reality after it dies; perhaps it behooves the soul to first spend some time in the physical universe so it can be imprinted on it what it means and how it feels and the parameters of a 3D + 1T Universe. Perhaps for a similar reason why early cro-magnon cavemen didn't build airplanes and cars and telephones. They hadn't been thought of yet, so they couldn't even imagine them. Defecation and urination not only imprint separation the soul, as they are happening the physical feelings they engender imprint on the soul the parameters of those parts of the body. Perhaps the same is true of sex. As we are making love, while we are touching our lovers, we are creating memory engrams of our bodies. Imprinting on the soul the outlines of the physical body. The same is probably also true when we stub our toes, or hit our funny bones, or brush our hair, or an insect walks across the hairs on our arm, or we touch our face, or scratch an itch, or feel our clothes on our bodies. Everything happens for a reason adn there are no coincidences. We are spiritual beings having a physical experience and everything happens for reason. The soul comes here to experience duality and separation to teach it what it means and how it feels to be a separate, unique, individual, experience time and space, and imprint memories on the soul of what it was like to live in a 3D + 1T Universe.

<>

Hi Neal

I dont know, that sounds really cynical to me buddy. I don't think eating is meaningless, I love expensive cheese. Regarding the afterlife, I better still have my cheese! Same with sex, which is something that can be totally emotional / spiritual / physical.

Art:

<>

You know, I hear a lot about spirituality involving the notion that we gain our individuality on Earth and lose it after we die. I personally think this is bull, and completely relative to ones philosophies. I think that fits the right-hand path Buddhist philosophies and such, but it doesn't apply to everyone. Without individuality between souls, life's meaningless. One of the purposes behind Earth is probably to GAIN individuality so that we can take it with us after we die.

The diversity of life involves unique interraction between people, notice that you will never meet the same person twice (even siamese twins are different), which means there is infinite variety, I don't think that's going to stop.

One of the purposes behind Earth is probably to GAIN individuality so that we can take it with us after we die. - cyrus
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree 100%, and this is one of the reasons why I don't believe in (or buy into) reincarnation (per se). It conflicts with my own personal theories as to why our soul is here in the first place. I believe that by experiencing duality and separation it is imprinted on the soul what it means and how it feels to be a separate, unique, individual, and once it gains this insight, it's a permanent thing, sort of in the way that a piece of clay after it's fired becomes a piece of pottery. It's changed and the change is permanent. Like a cooked egg. Reincarnation would be too schizophrenic. Tuned into too many stations all at one time. I believe the evidence is real enough, I believe "we" (the collective we) misinterpret it (the evidence).

The comments to this entry are closed.