The first American prophet

John DeSalvo's worthwhile albeit regrettably brief book Andrew Jackson Davis: The First American Prophet and Clairvoyant contains some interesting material on the 19th century medium.  One chapter recounts Davis's experience in a hospital when he observed two dying men. Davis reported that he saw, clairvoyantly, the entire dying process. His description matches up pretty well with accounts collected by Robert Crookall in his books on death and dying, such as Intimations of Immortality.

Observing one of the unconscious patients, Davis wrote,

There was, at first, a broad, ribbon-shaped current arising from the epigastrium. As it ascended, it separated, and expanded into a sort of fleecy steam-cloud, about three feet above the bosom, in the air where the effulgent elements assumed the form of an inverted pyramid with a turbinate envelope, which was, by a strong psychical cord, attached to the solar ganglia, a sort of linea alba tube.

The inverted pyramidal cloud gradually assumed an oval shape externally, amid, internally, a representation of the perfect ellipse, approximating to a globular form, and with a throbbing sun-bright nucleus, which seemed like the germ-cell from which, in a few moments, the miracle would be wrought of an immediate incubation, rapidly resulting in the production of a full-formed and indescribably perfect angel man!

An illustration commissioned by Davis shows a luminous oval cloud issuing from the supine patient's midsection and head. Though two cords are shown connecting the cloud to the patient, the idea seems to be that there is only one cord (the "broad, ribbon-shaped current"), which begins at the solar plexus and then gradually moves up to the head.

Once the cloud is fully formed, the patient's spirit flows through it "with lightning rapidity and vividness," forming a full-sized replica of the patient's body, starting with the head and working downward. In the illustration this body is shown still inside the now-expanded cloud, hovering vertically over the patient in a standing position.

Before the outline of the immortal head was visible, I observed that the cloud-like appearance of the emulations, as a whole, manifested several remarkable innate movements. There were vertical motions, upward and downward; lateral motions, like an anchored balloon, from side to side; then rotatory or gyrating motions, like a spinning-top immediately before losing its momentum. These various graceful motions completely subsided, and the whole became absolutely still, when the formation had advanced sufficiently to unfold the head and bust.

It was remarkable, the perfect progressiveness manifested in each succeeding stage of development. The two men patients were leaving the earth together, with only a few feet of airy space between; yet they were as absolutely without consciousness of each other's existence as though they were departing with the earth's entire diameter between them. In reality, there was no self consciousness in either during the metamorphosis. One was being born (or, in earthly words, one was dying) about an hour in advance of the other; which interesting difference gave me, as a medical student an opportunity to classify the successive stages of the marvelous process.

Davis goes on to say that the spirit, once separated from the body, enters a bright light and emerges in a heavenly environment surrounded by departed loved ones. This part of the report conforms closely to near-death experiences. The main difference is that Davis seems to think the dying person is unconscious throughout the process and awakens only when he has safely arrived on the other side. NDErs, on the other hand, often report being conscious of hovering over their own body and going into the light. Then again, most clinically dead patients who are resuscitated do not report an NDE. Is it possible that for most people the transitional part of the process is carried on while they are unconscious, and that's why only a minority of people report remembering an NDE? 

The question naturally arises whether Davis is a trustworthy source of information. Was he a real clairvoyant or a fake? DeSalvo, at least, is convinced Davis was the genuine article. He reports that Davis, like Edgar Cayce, was able to accurately diagnose people's illnesses while he was entranced and to prescribe treatments that worked. He also recounts a number of predictions made by Davis that arguably have come true. For instance, in March of 1846, Davis predicted that a total of nine planets would be discovered in the solar system; at the time only seven were known, although Neptune's existence was suspected. Davis seems to have provided a reasonably accurate description of the terrain of Venus, at that time totally unknown because of the planet's thick cloud cover. He said that the solar system itself was in motion, an idea that was confirmed a few months later. His description of the earliest stage of the universe bears a resemblance to Big Bang cosmology, though one might argue that it could have been inspired by mystical teachings such as Kabbalah. In 1852 he predicted that electricity would be used to power vehicles:

The lightning, that now performs the duties of a courier [the telegraph], and which sometimes ventures to declare itself independent of man's power, will yet be the chief engine of mechanical locomotion - it will drive the engine more rapidly than ever, and bring states into the most intimate relations; because it will almost destroy the time and space which now divide the interests of the people that inhabit the different portions of the land.

The accuracy of these predictions is debatable, but Davis does seem to have had incontestable success as a clairvoyant diagnostician, and his spiritual teachings conform pretty closely to mystical traditions and the teachings of other channelers. He also seems to have been sincere in his cause. He forswore all royalties to his first book The Principles of Nature, which became a bestseller and went through 32 printings. At age 56 he entered medical school and became a doctor so that he could treat patients in hospitals. He does not appear to have made much money, lived quietly, and, says DeSalvo, "eventually retired to Boston and opened a small book shop called the Progressive Bookstore. There he saw patients and prescribed herbal remedies. He died January 13, 1910" at the age of 83.  

When he passed on, did his spiritual body take shape in a cloud above his physical body - "a full-formed and indescribably perfect angel man"? That's surely what Davis himself expected, and I'm inclined to think he was not disappointed. 

Comments

[sonic]

Apparently people 'witnessing' the NDE of a loved one is not that unusual. I was at a lecture given by Moody and he asked if anyone there had such experience. A surprising number (10-15%?)had.

Sometimes I wonder about the regularity of NDE.
Two propositions--
There is lucid dreaming (some people know they are dreaming when they are dreaming and are able to control the dream.) This does not mean that the people who do not lucid dream don't dream. So those 'without' NDE maybe like those without 'lucid' dreaming.

It maybe that there are those among us that are not going on. In otherwords, those who demand that they are not spiritual beings may not be.

I doubt either of those are correct. I would like other options.

[Bryan.A]

When Dreaming you're aware of the dream,thus you're conscious but passive,but when u wake up you forget.Forgetting something that happened doesn't mean it didn't happen right?
The full sleepproces,including sleep paralysis,hypnogogic imagery and "out of body experience" can be experienced consiously like this and yet we forget about them.

That's why Lucid dreamers train on their Dream Recall,to be able to remember the normal dreams and to be able to actively be consious during the dream.

There's also the possibility that someone is about to reincarnate when they die,actually I think the grand mayority reincarnate even though I don't really like the idea at all.

There is one medium from Holland called Jozef Rulof that seems to think that before people reincarnate they go to a "sphere of the unconsious" to await their next being reborn.

Also the proces described by Andrew Jackson Davis seems very familiar to his discription of passing over.Well the mystery's of the beyond sure is a slippy slope though,guess we can really understand it all when we pass over.

[Markus Hesse]

Speaking of NDEs, you might be interested in checking out this relatively recent (2006) paper published in the Journal of Near-Death Studies of a British NDE case also featuring a veridical OBE, the lengthy interview with the patient is quite poignant and compelling.

A Prospectively Studied Near-death Experience with Corroborated Out-of-Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing

"It maybe that there are those among us that are not going on. In otherwords, those who demand that they are not spiritual beings may not be."

Spirits tell us through mediums that every one is an incarnated spirit. In NDE's and OBE's, the body is unconscious when the spirit leaves the body, therefore it seems unlikely that a human body could be functional without a spirit.

What can happen, though not necessarily in every case, is that after death a non-believer might remain an earth bound spirit refusing to accept that they are dead. This is why, it seems, that some people will never be convinced by any amount of evidence for the afterlife. If being dead and experiencing it directly for themselves won't convince them that there is an afterlife, how can any amount of evidence for the afterlife convince them while they are still among the living?

[william]

I have a photo of what appears to be a soul leaving a body or at least I had a photo of a soul leaving a body as I have misplaced it in my home. I got it from a fire fighter who was resuscitating a person that had just been hit by a car and a professional photographer came by and shot the picture.

It is like a cloud about 6 to 9 feet above the body about the size of a human. I had a couple of professional photographers look at it and they could not explain why that cloud existed. It was not an orb but a misty looking cloud.

This fire chief keeps it in his office to remind his firefighters not to talk about the person they are resuscitating. Interesting photo. I meant to have it framed but never got around to it.

[Zerdini]

“Dr. George Bush, professor of Hebrew at the University of New York, declared that he heard Davis correctly quote Hebrew.

"The seer's good faith was also established by his answers to impromptu questions put to him as tests while he was in the clairvoyant state.

"Bush said, ‘Taken as a whole the work is a profound and elaborate discussion of the philosophy of the universe, and for grandeur of conception, soundness of principle, clearness of illustration, order of arrangement and encyclopaedic range of subjects, I know no work of any single mind that will bear away from it the palm.’

“It was partly due to Bush's enthusiasm that the book, published in 1847, was received with such interest.

"Within a few weeks of its appearance, however, Bush published a pamphlet, Davis' "Revelations Revealed", warning the public against being misled by the numerous errors, absurdities, and falsities contained in Davis's work.

"It was clear to him, he said, that Davis, although apparently an honest and singlehearted young man, had been made the mouthpiece of uninstructive and deceiving spirits.

"This rapid change of opinion was later explained by Frank Podmore in his book "Modern Spiritualism" (1902) as stemming from the seer's attitude toward Christianity in the section of the book on divine revelations, which Bush probably did not read in advance and which contradicted Davis's views as expressed in his Lectures on Clairmativeness.”

[Michael H]

Is it possible that for most people the transitional part of the process is carried on while they are unconscious, and that's why only a minority of people report remembering an NDE?

This would appear to be the case - the premise can find support in everything from The Tibetan Book of the Dead to certain comments of The General MP excerpted in the "Unveiled" post.

I'd guess that those who find themselves interested in spiritual matters are likely to find the transition easier than those who don't share a similar interest. It's also worth considering that, in a sense, the essence of mystical testimony is that most of us are spending our lives right here "unconscious" of the genuine nature of reality.

[Art]

The question is, what does a person living in Siberia, or a Mongolian Sheep Herder, or an Amazonian Indian all experience regardless of where they live and what they believe? What aspects of our lives do we all experience regardless of who we are and where we live and what we believe?

Duality and separation, time and space, and memories of what it's like to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe.

[Michael Prescott]

the seer's attitude toward Christianity

Davis was rather hostile toward Christianity, at least in its conventional form. In his "Spiritual Declaration of Independence" (1851), which is included as an appendix to DeSalvo's book, Davis lists no fewer than 14 reasons for declaring independence from "the existing forms and institutions of Theology." Summarized, they are as follows:

1. Religion is dogmatic and authoritarian.
2. It sanctions capital punishment.
3. "It permits war, confiscation of property, and carnage."
4. It allows the exploitation of the working class.
5. It is sectarian.
6. It promotes dissension over doctrines and creeds.
7. "It generates cupidity and hypocrisy."
8. It damages children by teaching them that they are sinful and depraved and may go to Hell.
9. It opposes scientific and medical progress.
10. "It perpetuates social, political, and professional conflicts."
11. It "professes to not bring 'peace, but a sword!' "
12. "It discourages ... natural or physical enjoyments."
13. It claims Nature, Reason, and Conscience are "subordinate to ecclesiastical authority."
14. It opposes social improvements, including the rise of Spiritualism.

Quite a list! I think some of these evils are endemic to humanity itself, not simply to religion.

[william]

“8. It damages children by teaching them that they are sinful and depraved and may go to Hell.”

This is a very sad part of Christianity to teach children they are sinners and fall short in the eyes of god. Once while helping during a Sunday school class a five year old asked a profound question to the teacher who was an ordained minister. She was unable to answer that question of a five year old.

From my point of view even a five year old figured out something was amiss with the logic of what she was teaching. The parents who were very smart people were unable to see the fallacy of the logic their children were being exposed to. I suspect these parents were conditioned very early in their life how perfection could create what appears to be imperfection.

The fallacy of the fall from a creator that knows past, future, and present. Oh without the concept of free will as it is taught what indeed would religion be?

[Zerdini]

The statements concerning astronomy in the divine revelations section of "The Principles of Nature" are revealing.

In March 1846, when the existence of an eighth planet was yet an astronomical supposition (the discovery of Neptune, verifying Leverrier's calculations, did not take place until September 1846), the book spoke of nine planets. The density of the eighth planet as given by Davis agreed with later findings. (The ninth planet, Pluto, was discovered in 1933.)

On the other hand, Davis spoke of four planetoids—Ceres, Pallas, Juno, and Vesta—whereas there are now believed to be hundreds.

He also said that the solar system revolves around a great centre together with all the other stars.

Davis further believed Saturn to be inhabited by a more advanced humanity than ours, Jupiter and Mars were also inhabited, and on Venus and Mercury the development of humanity was less advanced than on Earth. The three outer planets he declared lifeless.

His prediction of the coming of Spiritualism was often quoted: "It is a truth that spirits commune with one another while one is in the body and the other in the higher spheres—and this, too, when the person in the body is unconscious of the influx, and hence cannot be convinced of the fact; and this truth will ere long present itself in the form of a living demonstration. And the world will hail with delight the ushering-in that era when the interiors of men will be opened, and the spiritual communion will be established such as is now being enjoyed by the inhabitants of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn."

In his notes dated March 31, 1848, the following statement occurs: "About daylight this morning a warm breathing passed over my face and I heard a voice, tender and strong, saying: 'Brother, the good work has begun — behold, a living demonstration is born.' I was left wondering what could be meant by such a message."

[dmduncan]

"Davis further believed Saturn to be inhabited by a more advanced humanity than ours, Jupiter and Mars were also inhabited, and on Venus and Mercury the development of humanity was less advanced than on Earth. The three outer planets he declared lifeless."

This is why spiritualism, like psychic remote viewing, needs verification.

There's lots of stuff floating around in people's minds, and some of it may be the real deal. But the good stuff is also liable to be mixed up with the crap, because if it's in your head, it 's all idea, and I'm not sure anyone has figured out a principle to separate one kind of idea from the other unless, as is the case with PRV, we can confirm the information by reference to the real world.

[Michael H]

Quite a list! I think some of these evils are endemic to humanity itself, not simply to religion.

As I was reading this, I thought about Ralph Waldo Emerson and how he would have concurred with the bulk of it. Emerson's Natural Religion is yet to become a reality, but I do think he had the right idea.

[Art]

Oh without the concept of free will as it is taught what indeed would religion be? - William
--------------------------------------------

I've been thinking along the same lines the last few weeks. Almost all religion hinges on free will? As far as I know the only religion I've ever heard of that might have taught predestination are the Presbyterians? I seem to recall something about John Calvin believing in predestination.

I think think the education of the soul may be too important to leave it up to chance. Personally I am somewhat skeptical of free will and lean heavily towards fate and predestination.

Free will just isn't necessary if the goal is simply to teach individual souls what it means to be separate and what time and space feel like and make memories of what it's like to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe.

Free will may just be an illusion created by the brain so that we are able to fully feel all the emotions needed to imprint memories on the soul. The more emotional the experience the more powerful and longer lasting the memories it creates.

[1236152951]

Sorry for my post, http://en.justin.tv/kbqlijdj/profile ">las mujeres mas bellas, 2286, http://en.justin.tv/roslrzih/profile ">las mujeres posiciones para hacer el amor, %-OOO, http://en.justin.tv/bmnqrkbf/profile ">piropos para mujeres, =))),

[william]

“Man is not a creature of blind circumstance or environment, no more is he a free moral agent in the sense of possessing a will that gives him an option in life. He represents the Law of Progress in this evolution, the change from the potential to the dynamic.

No matter what may be his environment, or the circumstances which cause and effect bring to bear upon him, he yet will carry on the forces as the only law of this Being in accord with the primal and inherent soul qualities of which he is possessed. He is not only a manifestation of that Cause which give rise to all expression but is a phase of the Reality which is inexpressible in any other way. Thus he has no will of this own other than the inherent tendency to express himself and this is NECESSITY.”

This may be the best explanation I have found of what most call free will from the book “the open door” by Theon Wright.

From my point of view we operate within a closed evolutionary system but within that closed system we have choices but never can we make a choice not to participate (express ourselves) whether in this world or another.

I think the ego loves the concept of free will, as it wants to control its own fate and destiny.

[sonic]

It does seem more likely that all human beings are beings in the spiritual sense.
One interesting thing-
I resuscitated a heart-attack patient and she told me about the experience she had. I now know this experience was a pretty typical NDE. The person was fully awake and alert when they relayed this to me.
Later the doctor and the nurse that were also present claimed the patient had said ‘nothing.’
I wonder how many times these stories get relayed to people who can’t hear them- (or was it I who was imagining things?)

[Sandy]

I wonder how many times these stories get relayed to people who can’t hear them- (or was it I who was imagining things?)

I don’t think you were imagining things, sonic. When I was in the hospital after my NDE, I found that no one would listen to me. Part of that may have just been the fact that I was so messed up and no one wanted to even look at me. They finally sent over a counselor to explain that I was going to be permanently disabled, so he had to listen. I told him that I was going to be fine because my dead grandmother had said so.

I don’t know if the counselor had heard stories like mine before. I don’t think he believed me at first, although he did get pretty emotional when I talked to him. I suppose that could have just been because it broke his heart to have to try and explain how badly hurt I was while I just looked at him dumbly and insisted that I’d be fine.

He came and saw me a couple of times, although he gave up trying to explain about the extent of my injuries after the first visit. I’m not sure he knew what to think of me. As it turned out, I was fine.

[Leo MacDonald]

Can any dualist here help me with this skeptic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMLzP1VCANo

If the brain was just a "receiver" your supernatural mind would still be able to transmit to the 2 halves, regardless of whether they were joined or not. The above shows that's obviously not how things work. If anything, split brain surgery disproves dualism, not confirm it.

He says studies showed that:

- They took people whose brain had been surgically split
- They showed them an image, which they could only see with one eye.
- If it was shown to the right eye, people could say what it was. If it was shown to the left eye people couldn't say what it was. They could point at it, grab it, whatever, they just could not describe it into words. Note that there was no impairment with either their eyes or their speech centers.

According to dualism
- The eye sees the object.
- The visual data is transmitted to the supernatural mind
- The supernatural mind identifies what it is
- The supernatural mind tells the mouth to say what it is

[Art]

Can any dualist here help me with this skeptic? - Leo MacDonald

Sure, here you go!

Goin Up Yonder! - Tremaine Hawkins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJav9Y3TbOA&feature=related

[Steen Bundgaard]

Free will just isn't necessary if the goal is simply to teach individual souls what it means to be separate and what time and space feel like and make memories of what it's like to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe. - Art

You keep saying this over and over again in nearly every thread in this Blog. But to be honest we have no clue of what the 'goal' is. I see this as your attempt of defining answers to the big questions, "why are we are here?" etc.

Even if it turns out that there is a meaning to life it might not be so simple - and the universe might not only be 4 dimensional as you keep saying. If e.g. a superstring theory is confirmed one day there may be many extra dimensions.

[Steen Bundgaard]

Can any dualist here help me with this skeptic
Leo, there is so many problems with classic substance dualism that virtually nobody supports the idea today. We know personality and consciouness is affected by e.g.

- alcohol
- drugs
- brain tumors

just to mention some issues. All this suggests that the mind is a product of the brain. I personally believe David Chalmer's 'property dualism' concept must be the closest idea to the actual truth we have today. This concept can also support PSI(if it exists) and it's in line with conventional science. Unfortuantely it does not support life after death - but life after death is far from certain even though we would all like to think so.

[Leo MacDonald]

Hi Steen,

Ever hear of the transmission theory? Problems like the interaction problem among other problems have been refuted.

http://www.newdualism.org/papers/S.Brisbane/case_for_dualism.html#4

[Art]

But to be honest we have no clue of what the 'goal' is. - steen

Separation to teach the soul what it means to be separate.

and the universe might not only be 4 dimensional as you keep saying. - steen

But what we experience are three dimensions and one time dimension.

[william]

“All this suggests that the mind is a product of the brain.”

I find this an interesting statement as there are year’s even decades of “spirits” coming through a medium and proving who they were in their physical life. The book “no living person could have known” does about as good of job of proving the mind is not a product of the brain.

As far as the goal for the soul to learn separation the soul does not have to learn separation it already feels separate due to its evolutionary process. Much of that evolutionary process is feeling separate. Most if not all of our selfishness we see in ourselves and the world is due to this feeling of separateness. What the soul learns is that it is not separate but part of this oneness that most call God, absolute, first cause, etc.

Without a feeling of separation there is no us and I suspect there is no expression of this absolute. We are that that is expressing itself. One can only hope “that that is” is enjoying the ride or should I say the process of expression.

The mystics to a person that I know of all state the struggle was worth it and the bliss they find when they have those feelings of oneness makes the journey all worth while.

[Art]

As far as the goal for the soul to learn separation the soul does not have to learn separation it already feels separate due to its evolutionary process. - william
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the other side the feelings of oneness and connectedness are infinite and overwhelming so much so that without the lessons in separation that the soul is imprinted with in this life it would lose it's sense of self. I remember reading one NDE where the woman stated that we here in the physical realm can't begin to understand the feelings of oneness and connectedness in Heaven.

[william]

“On the other side the feelings of oneness and connectedness are infinite and overwhelming so much so that without the lessons in separation that the soul is imprinted with in this life it would lose it's sense of self”

The soul is imprinted with a sense of self and this in time develops self-consciousness and all that goes with it. It is but one phase of a journey back to oneness. Much of my research suggests this is indeed why a soul leaves a better environment to come to a harsher physical world. To help learn that the self is but an aspect of the whole.

Most spirits that come through mediums have a very strong sense of self. It appears there is no sudden enlightenment after we cross over and like attracts like. Depending on what dimension we cross over to will determine how mental the world is and the depth of the feelings of oneness. It appears the greater the soul’s feelings of oneness the greater the bliss and the greater the creative potential.

The human mind is very deceptive it can often find with ease those aspects of its beliefs and be able to filter any information that does not validate its beliefs. We see that much clearer when we view political ideologies and religious beliefs. No quicker way to be thrown off someone’s blog than to challenge their nationalism, patriotism, or religious beliefs.

Also the interesting thing about paradigms when compared to beliefs is that they influence our beliefs and actions and we don’t have a clue how influential they are determining our mode of being in the world.

[Steen Bundgaard]

Problems like the interaction problem among other problems have been refuted.
The interaction problem is just one of many arguments against substance dualism. The interaction problem is known as a philosophical argument against (substance)dualism - there are other arguments from modern science like those I stated above.

Transmission Theory needs to produce some overwhelming evidence to be more generally accepted.

I find this an interesting statement as there are year’s even decades of “spirits” coming through a medium and proving who they were in their physical life.
People keep claiming this - I have however never been presented for any convincing proof myself. The evidence is very anecdotal.

[Michael Prescott]

Transmission Theory needs to produce some overwhelming evidence to be more generally accepted.

Have you read Irreducible Mind? 800 pages of carefully researched studies ought to count for something. The truth is, there's more than enough evidence. What prevents people from accepting some form of dualism is not lack of evidence, but a pre-existing commitment to materialism. Most people today - especially most intellectuals - are de facto materialists, and they cannot believe any evidence that falls outside the scope of materialism. So no matter how much evidence there is, it doesn't matter, since it is dismissed out of hand.

The evidence is very anecdotal.

Right on cue, here's a great example of dismissing evidence out of hand. People who say all the evidence is anecdotal either are unaware of the evidence or don't know what "anecdotal" means. There are numerous carefully controlled case studies of mediumship. See Hodgson's work with Leonora Piper, or Drayton Thomas's work with Gladys Osborn Leonard, for starters. (Hodgson's work is well covered in Deborah Blum's Ghost Hunters.)

The data in this field are no more anecdotal than the data of anthropology. When people play the "anecdotal" card, they are just trying to avoid facing the evidence, which would require rethinking their worldview. It's a psychological defense mechanism, not an argument.

[Art]

Much of my research suggests this is indeed why a soul leaves a better environment to come to a harsher physical world. To help learn that the self is but an aspect of the whole. - william
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You don't have to learn "oneness". You are going to be drowned in it after your cross over. I've read a blue million near death experiences where they say the feelings of oneness and connectedness are infinite and overwhelming on the other side. If the purpose of this life is to "learn oneness" then why is this life so full of separation? From the moment we are born and we exit our mother's wombs and the umbilical cord is cut till the day we die and our death's become a lesson in separation for the loved ones we leave behind life is a never ending lesson in separation.

[Sandy]

If the purpose of this life is to "learn oneness" then why is this life so full of separation?

Maybe we are here to find connections in spite of the overwhelming aspect of separation that seems to define this existence. Haven’t you ever been in love, Art?

[Steen Bundgaard]

I do accept a form of dualism - property dualism. I think consciousness is an intrinsic feature of organized matter - yet to be discovered and not reduceable to fundamental laws of physics.

But e.g. the split brain example stated by Leo Macdonald proves that a mind transmitting into the brain theory impossible can be true. This is hard evidence reproduable over and over again.

[Michael H]

All this suggests that the mind is a product of the brain.

The known correlations between the brain and consciousness can't tell us anything regarding the nature of consciousness itself. Don Hoffman's article "Dismissing God", available at AntiMatters, touches on how either side of the philosophical debate can use the data to support their position.

A few other resources that those who adhere to the materialist assumption that consciousness arose from matter should take a moment to consider are:

1) Craig Hamilton's piece "Is God All in Your Head?", available at this link (4MB PDF download, email registration required):

http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/consciousness/

2) The Pew Forum's event last May, featuring Andrew Newburg and David Brooks, "How Our Brains are Wired for Belief":

http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=185#neuroscience

I'm pretty sure that it was this event that led to last year's NYT column by Brooks, "The Neural Buddhists" - at least his comments from the transcript suggest so:

". . . this is a challenge for a lot of religious people, there is a firm conviction – and I think with tons of evidence – that there is no distinction between the spiritual aspect of life and the physical body. If you have some dualistic notion that the soul is separate from the body, this research destroys that . . .

"I think if you read the research, you will see there is no reason to think one religion is any different or any better than the other. Where the research winds up ultimately is, frankly, at Buddhism, the idea that the self is this dynamic process. There is some generic spirituality that may or may not be tethered to a higher being, and importantly, to the idea that we are social creatures. There is no such thing as one individual brain. Our brains are all merged together in a series of ultimate feedback loops. So I think when you look at this research, which is going to have this effect on society as everybody else pigeons off it, it won’t lead to what Tom Wolfe feared. It won’t lead to the idea that we are just material creatures and atheism is the answer. It will lead to soft-core Buddhists."

Finally, Mohrhoff's 30-plus page review of Irreducible Mind, also available at AntiMatters, is comprehensive and persuasive in itself.

As MP says, though, none of these are likely to change anyone's mind. We're all evaluating evidence through our own self-created lenses, so we find what we expect to find.

Maybe we are here to find connections in spite of the overwhelming aspect of separation that seems to define this existence. Haven’t you ever been in love?

Maybe the trickiest thing about the whole "why are we here" line of questions has to do with the implicit assumption that there's something outside of us that's designed an agenda for us to meet. I think the real point of existence has to do with realizing - and then fully embodying - our true nature. It seems that the challenge is to overcome our amnesia, to paraphrase something Cyrus wrote a few threads back. I also think that it's entirely possible for anyone to do so at anytime - either in subsequent realms or in this very moment.

On the topic of falling in love, it's been my experience that interactions with others can often lead us closer to the moment, but there's also a danger of conflating the person with the moment, which can easily turn love into possession. It may be interpreted as a harsh evaluation, but it does seem that falling in love, for most of us, has more to do with attachment to our memories of the moments shared, rather than deep, genuine identification with the aspect of the person we've shared the moments with. Falling in love involves merging into the moment with another, and it does lead to feelings of unity - but the unity experienced is an aspect of the moment, not the person we're sharing the moment with. It's admittedly very difficult to tell the difference.

I think this is why people so often fall out of love - they've conflated the person with the moments, and are inevitably disappointed when they discover that the person doesn't always measure up.

[Art]

Maybe we are here to find connections in spite of the overwhelming aspect of separation that seems to define this existence. Haven’t you ever been in love, Art? - Sandy
--------------------------------------------

Religion, politics, race, culture, language, dialects, gender, sexual orientation, color, weight and height, wealth, education, country of origin, socio-economic status, all different kinds of duality. Life is a never ending plethora of "duality". Duality and separation seem to be inherent and inescapable properties of the physical universe. Separation is the major theme to almost every book, play, movie, and the lyrics to most songs. From teh moment we are born and separate from our mothers till the day we die and our loved one's experience separation by our death's life seems to be an unending lesson in separation. The answer as to "why?" is simple, it teaches the soul what it means and how it feels to be separate, something it can't learn in Heaven due to those overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness. It may not be possible to develop a sense of "self" while living in heaven so it has to be accomplished here. I highly doubt we are here to learn about love or become "one with God" but exactly the opposite; we are here to become separate, unique, individuals so that after our souls cross back over into the Spiritual Universe they will be able to maintain that sense of uniqueness.

[dmduncan]

It may also be, if substance dualism is true, that nothing less than death trauma can cause the separation to occur.

[Bryce]

For Art & William:

George Anderson: "This is the single most important thing every soul learns--that everything they suffer through on the earth is rewarded so much, that they have actually told me they would go through all the misery again, just to have a fraction of the peace, love and beauty that they found on the other side. They also understand that they had to earn it, and in retrospect, found that all their turmoil on the earth was a very small price to pay. It must be beautiful beyond our comprehension if the souls are able to make that statement."

"The souls have told me so many times that we are here to create "Heaven" on the earth, in any way we can, and they tell me that it is through perhaps our worst and most trying experiences that the lessons are the most profound. Our goal is to bring peace and hope to others, in spite of our own pain. It's the most important lesson we will learn on the earth, and the one that brings the most reward in the hereafter."

-Sort of blows the "just gotta live" and "nothing is required" and "that-that-is expressing itself" doesn't it?

Sorry, I'm going to have to go with George on this, not philosophy from Art and William.

[Bryce]

GEORGE ANDERSON: "The souls tell me so often that they are closer to us than we can imagine. They know what we are thinking, they know how we are feeling, and they know how we really feel about them--the things we may have never told them, the feelings we may have never shared, and the things we wish were different. Your Mom knows this all--she knows because there isn't a day in your life since she passed, that she is not with you. Every Mom in the hereafter tells me the same thing. They joke that now their kids REALLY can't get away from them because there is no where to hide from a Mother's love, especially when she is able to shower you with it from the hereafter. Naturally the souls can't fix everything--they understand that part of our learning experience here is to endure struggles and heartaches, but they caution us to "only fight the battles that need to be fought." That means not being despondent that a loved one has disappeared from you just because they are in the hereafter. Of course we miss them in the physical sense, but part of our experience on the earth is to recognize that just because we cannot see something does not mean it isn't there. The other side has its own set of rules, and we have to play in a whole different court. We have to adjust our senses when we want to see our loved ones--we need to see with our mind, listen with our heart, and communicate with our soul. This is the best we can do right now, but as long as we walk the earth, we will never be walking alone."

"Trust me, after a bumpy ride here, NO soul is interested in running back--not when they see all their struggles have earned them on the other side. They tell me that as they grow spiritually on the other side--part of their work is to help us continue here so that we can also enjoy our reward and see them again. They are waiting for us so that we can reunite. This is something they look forward to almost as much as we do. And they will be there."

"But the souls have told me emphatically that they wait for each and every one of us to return--it is very important to them, and they know it is what we are hoping for. So reincarnation, if it happens at all, is way ahead in their future."

"I'll stick with the souls--they make much more sense. I want everybody to believe that our loved ones exist and are happy, and still part of our lives. I have heard it with my own ears and seen it, and I get a little put out when people tell me that I am either mentally ill or just a hopeful thinker."

And this sort of blows the buddhist ultimeate nothingness out of the water too, doesn't it. People here type mountains of philosophical things, yet Buddha and love? Buddha pushed INDIFFERENTISM. Is that love? Indifferent to everything around us? Compare that to what is written of waht Jesus Christ said is required and consider which might be more realistic. Perhaps we should remove ourselves to an uninhabited desert isle and sit with out eyes closed deep in thought about "something" to escape attachement.

Georege's comments also seem to blow out of the water the immediate crashing onto the scene reincarnation philosophy too. Once again, I'll go with George on this, not philosophy.

[Bryce]

GEORGE ANDERSON:

Where is it that we go when we die? Does the other side tell you where we're going?

Well, according to what they say, go through the different levels of consciousness. We're working our way up. It's like, to go up to the twelfth grade, you've got to pass the first through the eleventh. When we pass on, we do go into the tunnel, we can go through these little darker levels, which can represent a form of hell or purgatory, because these are the two negative levels, or the darker ones. But if we've been a good person, we generally just seem to pass through them very quickly and then we go on through the third and fourth levels of consciousness, where average people such as ourselves go - not everybody can be a Mother Teresa, who would probably go higher up. When we go through these levels we meet our relatives and friends greeting us at the end of the tunnel, much as in the movie Resurrection, where they're waiting and they lead us into the light. And there's like a form of spiritual rejuvenation, like a reunion, like a party, 'Hey, it's great to see you again.'

I've never really heard any complaints about the other side, unless the person has gone over there and into the darker levels, for committing some serious crime, hurting people, or committing suicide. Generally, thought, most spirits I've heard from seem to be very happy, very content, very much at peace, very aware and knowing of themselves, even if they were very negative and very unhappy here.

Does it matter what level you're on to be able to communicate?

You might be inclined not to come to me if you're on one of the darker levels. I would not be attracting anything that would be negative, so if you're on the darker or the lower levels, unless it's for a specific spiritual purpose, I would not discern you. A Hitler, to take one extreme, would put himself in such a state of darkness that he would literally not be able to communicate.

Will a suicide, for example, remain on that dark plain?

Not perpetually. Through their own free will, they can progress. The problem that the suicide faces in the next dimension is that, when you arrive in the next level, it's not the pretty sight that the average passing can be. Their problem is that they cannot forgive themselves. When someone comes through in a reading and is starting to make me feel as if they've taken their own life, You feel like you're in the presence of a ghost. There's a chilling feeling. And it's very important that those coming through acknowledge what they've done. It's like getting up and saying, 'I'm an alcoholic.' Coming forward and saying, 'I have taken my own life.' A friend of mine who had recently taken his life came through and did not know how to go into the light. I kept telling him to go forward to the light, but he was afraid of judgment. He couldn't forgive himself. Also, he was having a problem with the fact that after he had taken his own life, his spirit obviously lingered around the scene of the act. He could not overcome the memory of his father's discovering him, and that was haunting him emotionally to a tremendous degree in the next dimension. What he and many of us don't understand is that there is judgment there, but it is not done by God on a throne. Judgment rests basically with yourself. And we all know that the greatest enemy we can face is ourselves.

It can take eons of time as we understand it before they go into the light. It depends on the person. You're in control. You hold the reins. Those who've come through those darker levels have said that they've had to face themselves and realize that if they don't shape up, in other words, learn more about themselves, they're not getting anywhere.

Once again, sort of blows Art's 3+1 theory out of the water, as well as William's "free will" theory that is constantly written about, and blows the new age "all is love and good and only expression" out of the water too. Once again, I have to go with George on these.

[Barbara]

Bryce, you follow George because you like what he says. You are looking through the "George" lens.

[Bryce]

Barbara, who do you follow because you like them? Whose lens are you looking through? Whose lens is everyone who comments here looking through? Certainly Art, William, Michael H, and virtually all others seem to have a "lens", wouldn't you say?

Further, a study that I came across pointed out some interesting things:

The most ancient texts known in India are the Vedic writings, which date from 1,300 B.C. They did NOT refer at any time, to a belief in reincarnation. This may sound shocking to some new age fans.
The Vedic writings stated that a person existed as a whole after death. This is why they were buried. Much later, with the introduction of the Brahmanas, man had to face a second death in the afterlife and then return to earth. To break this cycle one had to obtain esoteric knowledge.
This "secret knowledge" to achieve self-realisation was also taught much later, in the 2nd century A.D., with the introduction of the gnostic religion, which appeared a short time after Christianity. Curiously, they gathered the idea of reincarnation from Plato (which we'll see below).
The concept of samsara (reincarnation) and Karma appeared with later writings (9th century B.C.) The person's atman (soul) experimented an impersonal fusion with the Brahman, which again, could only be attained by performing secret rituals only known to a few.

Later, in the famous Bhagavad Gita (preached by our friendly flower-selling Hare Krishna's), Krishna (the 9th incarnation or Avatar of god Vishnu) says that reincarnation is a natural process. And according to your actions, you reincarnate on a different body, being it a rat, a gadfly, a vulture, ant, pig, bull, horse, etc.
This also fortified the belief in castes. If someone was leper, or suffered diseases, was because he did something bad in his previous life. So helping him was something VERY, VERY bad.
Notice. The idea of succesive reincarnations needed to reach "illumination" and attain the unavoidable evolution of mankind, is another occidental novelty, incompatible with the Eternal Samsara wheel of life.

Buddhist Nirvana
•The neglecting of all desires - indifferentism
•centered on yourself
•Incommunication with all beings
•Miracles are useless - people suffer because of their past actions

As you see, Buddhism preaches indifferentism. The only way to help someone not to suffer is to teach him the way of Nirvana. Helping other people physically is useless, because they will suffer according to their own Karma. Again, you won't be able to suffer and have compassion for others, because compassion is a feeling you have to get rid of, to attain Nirvana.

Defenders of reincarnation claim that the early christians did believe in reincarnation. However, this claim is very weak , since none of the early Christian Fathers believed in reincarnation (as I will prove in the links below).
An early christian writer named Origen, however, did express his views about the pre-existence of souls. He is often misquoted by reincarnationists to prove their point of view.

We must also notice that preexistence of the soul is NOT the same as reincarnation. Preexistence is about what was of our souls BEFORE our bodies were created, and reincarnation is about what happens to our souls AFTER our bodies die. However, Origen rejected completely the notion of transmigration of souls. In his own words:

In this place [Matt. 17:10-13] it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, LEST I SHOULD FALL INTO THE DOGMA OF TRANSMIGRATION, which is FOREIGN TO THE CHURCH OF GOD, and not handed down by the Apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the Scriptures...

Origen, Commentary on Matthew, XIII.1.
emphasis mine)

The plot thickens...

[Bryce]

And just to clarify, Barbara, I'm not "going with George", I'm going with WHAT IS TOLD TO HIM. There is a difference.

[Art]

Arguing and disagreeing on a message board is just another way of experiencing duality and separation.

So, my soul thanks you for another lesson about what it means to be separate. Ironic isn't it?

[william]

“We're all evaluating evidence through our own self-created lenses, so we find what we expect to find.”

Not sure this is always true because 18 years ago when I started this research I expected to find that this physical world was it i.e. everything. Many religious beliefs did not to me pass even the simplest of logic tests. It took a lot of years of research but slowly and with many doubts the evidence started to build up that this world was more than most people know about and the senses can be very misleading.

I think spiritualism has been the biggest surprise to me as to the amount of evidence they have accumulated in the last 150 years that few people know about. Because of the very nature of paranormal phenomena science has had a very difficult time evaluating their evidence.

As far as a religion spiritualism had a whole host of problems too many to discuss here. One of my biggest surprises was that atheism can be as rigid in its beliefs as any fundamentalist religion. When I started this research I was convinced that atheists would be free thinkers, as they are not bogged down with religious beliefs.

Atheists worship at the altar of scientism and considering the history of science and how most scientists have rejected almost every new scientific paradigm from its initial discovery this is indeed an interesting place to worship.

I have no problem with George Anderson’s teachings and I enjoy reading his books. One must remember that there are different levels of spirits that come through mediums. I found very little in reading the quotes you stated that I have not found in my research. Lower level spirits and even some that kardec called higher level spirits will indeed promote the concept of free will and also it depends on one’s operational definition of the term free will.

I prefer the term choices within boundaries to free will. It appears in my life fate had much more to do with my life than free will. But of course within that fate have been choices. I personally believe that the ego loves the concept of free will and yes even souls have egos and can feel like a separate self contrary to art’s beliefs.

There is no us without that feeling of separation but a feeling of oneness is much more prevalent in these higher astral world dimensions.

God does not roll the dice it is a closed system but to our level of consciousness it appears to us as an open system.

[Bryce]

Art: "I highly doubt we are here to learn about love or become "one with God" but exactly the opposite; we are here to become separate, unique, individuals so that after our souls cross back over into the Spiritual Universe they will be able to maintain that sense of uniqueness."

-And what then? What happens then? Nothing? Stagnation? Everyone gets the same "reward"? Doesn't seem to be much point to existence in this equation, does there Art?

And, I've yet to hear any kind of an explanation that sounds like it makes any sense as to how a "reality" created by your mind would be "real". And, I don't mean long philosophy on how "mind" creates your circumstances right here and now in this world. I would like to know how seeing a person in the spiritual world, or a mountain perhaps, that is created by your mind, is an ACTUAL person or mountain. I've heard a lot of stumbling to answer this but nothing that has ever sounded like it made sense.

I also think it's pretty questionable to make the kind of assumptions Art does about all of existence based on NDEs when the sobering fact is that over 70% of people who supposedly die, experience nothing.

My two cents worth is that I also don't put much stock into trance channelling either (including the beloved silver birch). One can easily see all of the "truths" that are channelled ranging from Oahspe to Neale Walsch's god, and everything in between, and it's all different. The reason given is that spirits are all at different "advancement"...yet the spirits all seem to insist that they are smarter than the others and vice versa. Perhaps most if not all of trance channel is really only coming from the mind of the channeller? This seems pretty likely to me, yet I'm quite sure that will not be popular here. It seems that no one wants to consider that possibility. And, no one seems to have the slightest problem with believing something that is said by "something" that they can't see, touch, smell or verify anything that is being said! Would you trust someone who phoned you from Indonesia and started telling you how "advanced" they were, and started telling you "truth"??

[Michael H]

Buddhist Nirvana

•The neglecting of all desires – indifferentism
•centered on yourself
•Incommunication with all beings
•Miracles are useless - people suffer because of their past actions

As you see, Buddhism preaches indifferentism. The only way to help someone not to suffer is to teach him the way of Nirvana. Helping other people physically is useless, because they will suffer according to their own Karma. Again, you won't be able to suffer and have compassion for others, because compassion is a feeling you have to get rid of, to attain Nirvana.

I’m not a Buddhist, but the idea that Buddhism equates to self-centered indifference strikes me as exactly what happens when someone attempts to anticipate the state of Nirvana without the experience of the state of Nirvana. When one actually experiences the state of Nirvana, or Samadhi, or Métis, or Grace, or whatever else we want to call it, they realize that their capacity for compassion has expanded to embrace all of creation - and that what they previously thought was compassion was in actuality a form of sympathy.

Again, that statement will likely be interpreted as empty philosophizing, except to those who have actually experienced the state of Nirvana. And they already know it.

Certainly Art, William, Michael H, and virtually all others seem to have a "lens", wouldn't you say?

I can’t speak for the others, but I know that I’m looking through a lens. I just mentioned in an email to a friend (regarding Yogananda, BTW) that it seems that no matter how much anyone understands, we're all still stuck at looking out from a lens that's colored in one respect or another, while the real goal is to learn to see without any lens at all. ALL of the time.

Let me know when you get there, Bryce, and I’ll do the same.

It took a lot of years of research but slowly and with many doubts the evidence started to build up that this world was more than most people know about and the senses can be very misleading.

This is a good description of learning to see past an existing lens, William.

Still, I've found that learning to live without any lens is even more challenging than changing the shade. In all honesty, I like the shade I'm using at the moment just fine, but I do know that it's at least possible to see without any lens at all. And, me being me, that’s apparently the venture I’m on.

I hope I get there soon - with all of the dark lenses our economy is being viewed with at the moment, being lens-free might be very helpful.

[william]

“I hope I get there soon - with all of the dark lenses our economy is being viewed with at the moment, being lens-free might be very helpful.”

This may sound ridiculous but maybe dark lenses or what is perceived as dark lenses may not be all that dark. My point is maybe Jesus was on to something with his statement what we sow we reap or the Buddhist concept of karma. I feel the economy is only giving us feedback and most of us rather than look at it as feedback all we see in finger pointing.

What fascinates me is that many people want to continue to do more of the same. That is the power of paradigms even when the evidence comes in that it is not working we discount that evidence and continue on the same path.

We have so much to learn in America about trickle down economics, free trade, open markets, giving tax payers money to the very people (ceo’s) that bankrupted their companies, pay for performance to improve education, wall street processes, deregulation, no regulation, gov regulation, the list is almost endless.

Giving the (ceo’s) of the big three and wall street ceo’s billions is like making the fox in charge of the hen house and when all the chickens disappear continuing to buy more chickens for the hen house and wondering why the chickens keep disappearing.

“we're all still stuck at looking out from a lens that's colored in one respect or another”

Without that lens there is no us. Ok perceived us. It is our unawareness that creates that lens but without that unawareness there is no expression or interaction of Beings like us. If everyone were created with perfect clarity (no lens) that would be cloning not creation. Stated another way for Oneness to create and/or express its potential it must go through a phase of involution and evolution.

Actually Oneness cannot clone itself but it is the only way I know at this time to explain the process of involution and evolution.

[shadow warrior]

Bryce I think you would find the likes of Dr Jim Tucker would disagree with you about Reincarnation

I myself agree with William's philosophy but I disagree with Art's, I have looked at the cases of children remember past lives and I have ruled out that it's spirit possession that is happening to these children because they seem to keep the same habits that they had in a past life...

My belief in Reincarnation stems from my own experiences and I don't buy into what Science tells us about phobia's I very much believe they come from past lives.

I like George Anderson but I think you will find there are other credible mediums out there that believe Reincarnation happens but I have no need to throw names around, also you can't just discredit trance channeling unless you have experience with it yourself.

btw nobody really knows what happens to us when we die we can only know when our time is up on this Earth.

[dmduncan]

You ask some reasonable questions,Bryce.

"I would like to know how seeing a person in the spiritual world, or a mountain perhaps, that is created by your mind, is an ACTUAL person or mountain. I've heard a lot of stumbling to answer this but nothing that has ever sounded like it made sense."

I would also like to know this. It's classic New Age thinking that doesn't seem to be anchored by any facts at all. It seems to be something some people think is true because that's what they want to be true.

"Perhaps most if not all of trance channel is really only coming from the mind of the channeller? This seems pretty likely to me, yet I'm quite sure that will not be popular here. It seems that no one wants to consider that possibility."

Another good point. As I've pointed out before, psychic remote viewers have hits and misses, and we know that by reference to the real world which either does or does not confirm their predictions.

But with channeling you have precious little in the real world to verify any claims. And we know that the mind produces a lot of meaningless chatter, so there really is no way to evaluate the legitimacy of SPECIFIC claims about how crossing over works or how spirit contact with the world works when there is no hope of verification.

But when you have large numbers of people all reporting similar features in their NDEs, then I think you have to accept, if you are reasonable, that something genuine is going on, something that they aren't making up.

And even if you are talking to spirits, how do you know they are being honest and not deceptive?

For all we know, the believers are a constant source of amusement for mischievous spirits on the other side who take pleasure in feeding them bullshit, just because it's so easy.

[Michael Prescott]

I would like to know how seeing a person in the spiritual world, or a mountain perhaps, that is created by your mind, is an ACTUAL person or mountain.

With regard to the mountain, one could perhaps ask the same question about mountains seen on earth. After all, when we see a mountain here, what is it, really? It is a collection of sensory impressions somehow processed by our brain to produce the image of a mountain in our mind. The world as we know it is experienced entirely within our heads; we can never get outside ourselves to perceive "things as they are"; we can know them only as they appear to be.

So before asking if a mountain seen in the afterlife is real, one might first ask if a mountain seen in this life is real.

What do we mean by "real," anyway? If we mean "existing independently of any observer," then we have no way - and logically we cannot have any way - of ever knowing if anything is real in this sense.

So we might say that we are living in a world of our own consciousness right now, in which case the afterlife may not be so very different. (And, according to reports, it isn't.)

But doesn't this lead to solipsism (the idea that our mind is the only mind there is)? It could, but the claim made by mediums and mystics is that the afterlife world (and perhaps our earthly world too?) is created by the shared consciousness of many minds. If this is true, then presumably the people you see in the afterlife - or most of them - are just as real as the people you see on earth. They are participating in the collective consciousness that produces their environment, including their own bodies and clothing, but their minds are real and are really separate from your mind.

I say this is true of most of the people you see in the afterlife because many traditions teach that some of the people and creatures you encounter are illusory. So it's not cut-and-dried; there is room for confusion, and it is not unusual for people - especially new arrivals - to be confused for a while.

As far as mischievous spirits are concerned, I suppose there's no way to rule out the possibility, but an awful lot of uplifting spiritual insights have come through mediums and NDEs, and I'd be surprised if deceitful low-level spirits are capable of (or interested in) such communications.

[Art]

With regard to the mountain, one could perhaps ask the same question about mountains seen on earth. After all, when we see a mountain here, what is it, really? - Michael Prescott
--------------------------------------------

excerpt from Mysterious Light:
"Take, for example, our ideas as to the nature of matter. For two thousand years it was believed that atoms were tiny balls of solid matter-a model clearly drawn from everyday experience. Then, as physicists discovered that atoms were composed of more elementary subatomic particles (electrons, protons, neutrons, and suchlike), the model shifted to one of a central nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons-again a model based on experience.

An atom may be small, a mere billionth of an inch across, but these subatomic particles are a hundred-thousand times smaller still. Imagine the nucleus of an atom magnified to the size of a grain of rice. The whole atom would then be the size of a football stadium, and the electrons would be other grains of rice flying round the stands. As the early twentieth-century British physicist Sir Arthur Eddington put it, "matter is mostly ghostly empty space"-99.9999999 percent empty space, to be a little more precise.

With the advent of quantum theory, it was found that even these minute subatomic particles were themselves far from solid. In fact, they are not much like matter at all-at least nothing like matter as we know it. They can't be pinned down and measured precisely. They are more like fuzzy clouds of potential existence, with no definite location. Much of the time they seem more like waves than particles. Whatever matter is, it has little, if any, substance to it." http://www.peterrussell.com/SG/IONS.php