Grab-bag

A hodgepodge of items, in no particular order ...

------

I just read two Skeptiko interviews with Dr. Jeffrey Long and Dr. Kevin Nelson. Interesting to see how two experts can look at the same data and arrive at totally different conclusions.

Dr. Long is convinced that NDEs provide "proof" of life after death and has written a book promoting this viewpoint. Dr. Nelson believes that NDEs can be explained by standard neuroscience.

I have some problems with Dr. Long's position. He seems to have acquired his database from stories submitted to a Web site. I don't know how much (if any) checking and verification he performed.

He also insists that the veridical parts of NDEs are almost always accurate, but I have read a fair number of NDE accounts in which the veridical part was inaccurate in some respects. As one example, in his book The Truth in the Light, Peter Fenwick includes a case in which a man hovered over his body but did not see his companions near him. When he returned to his body, he found that one of his companions was actually lying on top of him (dead) - something he certainly should have seen from an elevated vantage point.

Of course, I have my doubts about Dr. Nelson's position too. His case is basically that the brain continues to function for 10-20 seconds after cardiac arrest, thus accounting for any veridical details in the NDE. But this seems unsatisfactory on a number of levels. For one thing, NDErs do not report confused, disconnected impressions, but coherent, vivid, structured narratives that are inconsistent with a feebly flickering consciousness. For another, some NDEs involve perceptions of thing totally outside the patient's normal range of awareness - a shoe on a ledge, for instance. Some veridical accounts involve visual details that could only be perceived by some form of sight (such as the unusual color of a hospital worker's blouse), yet the patient's eyes were closed. Etc.

Dr. Nelson also claims that science understands a lot about how the brain produces consciousness. I don't think this is correct. It would be correct to say that science has learned a lot about brain states and how they correlate with mental states (although the correlation is not always as clear as popular articles suggest), but the "hard problem" of how subjective consciousness emerges from electrochemical operations in the brain remains unanswered.

As leading neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga has said, when it comes to brain research, "We are not a few miles down a long road; we are a few inches down the long road." (Quoted in There Is Life After Death, by Roy Abraham Varghese.)

Naturally, the same could be said for research into life after death.

------

Cyrus posted an interesting comment that may have been overlooked, so I'm putting it here:

As usual I'm jumping into this conversation very late, but I found Zetetic Chick's points about the "third way" to be very interesting.

I generally feel disdain around both materialism (objectivism, reductionism, other god-awful philosophies) and religiosity which are the two prevailing mind-sets for most people in the West. As somebody who follows spiritual research I generally consider myself as belonging to some undefined third-world view.

Those who made the most headway in trying to define this world-view in concrete terms were probably the Spiritualists. This didn't work out very well because Spiritualism is / was an "ism" that came forth in an age of cults and public weariness towards new movements and ideas.

But what you'll find is public perception of things like communication with the deceased is rapidly increasing. I dare to say it's more commonly accepted and discussed in 2010 than ever in history (except perhaps.. ancient Egypt?). So, in an undefined way, it's slipping through the cracks.

The bane of its existence may very well be the "new age" movement, otherwise known as the worst attempt yet to define an organizational movement around not only communication with the departed, but a million whack-ideas, ranging from 2012 nonsense, to healing crystals, Plaedian aliens, and other bunk topics which completely invalidate the legitimate phenomena.

In essence, a world where life after death is recognized as legitimate is an entirely separate culture, far removed from the religious or materialist philosophies humans have grown up with. This would be a culture with an entirely new and unique set of philosophies and issues.

Flash-forward 100 or 200 years to a world where communication with the deceased has become technologically advanced and accepted by society:

On the plus side, I do think that in such a world there would be a higher appreciation about life. More people would take chances and dare to really "live" versus being afraid of boogeymen and staying inside their homes their whole lives. There would certainly be less materialism, which would mean the possessive, covetous, and selfish nature of many would diminish. And with less attachment to organized religion there would be more emphasis on individuality and self-expression.

The down-side: with an entire new system of philosophies, there would be many strange and alien philosophies and movements.

There would be assemblies of people who take Earth-life completely for granted. Imagine highly suicidal people prone to extreme levels of risk-taking or public displays of death.

This world would see followers of "Chaotic philosophies", perhaps in rebellion to the perceived order in the universe. These people would herald the importance of conflict and would be prone to terrorist attacks and blowing up buildings simply for the purpose of undoing other people's work.

And communication with afterlife entities could seduce entire countries. Imagine a third-world country ruled by the whims of a council of mediums who believe they are taking orders from far superior intelligences, which are in reality disruptive or dark entities.

So, as you can imagine, this would be an entirely different world. When you think about it this way, perhaps it's easy to understand why people are so weary of the supernatural, because some people just like the world for as it is right now.

However, when I look at the direction we're heading, this theoretical society may come around sooner than we think. Perhaps not our generation, but in a couple of hundred years.

------

And Ben posted a poem of his that deserves to be lifted out of the comments thread:

Wising Up

So how did honeybees evolve,
To do business as they fly;
To navigate
By the sun’s position in the sky?

From eggs laid by a queen,
Most hatch as worker clones;
Some are guards; others scouts;
There are nurses; even drones.

They co-operate in colonies
Fifty thousand strong;
Single-mindedly, determinedly,
All summer long.

They’ve arranged a special symbiosis
With the flower;
In exchange for pollination:
Nectar-power!

Whenever scouts discover
Blossoms at their best,
They fly back home
And dance directions to the rest.

With big bulbous eyes
And ultraviolet sight,
They can see patterns on petals
Which guide them to alight.

By use of two pairs of wings
Which hook up in flight,
They can pitch up and down;
Or yaw left and right.

Inside the nest, by alchemy,
The nectar (gathered crude)
Is refined to golden honey,
Transcendental food.

The honey store does more
Than just permit bees to survive;
By sipping it, they somehow milk
The wisdom of the hive.

I know our brains to theirs
Are twenty thousand times the size;
But fifty thousand honeybees
Add up to ‘very wise’.

Comments

[Barsoom]

I thought you might like this story Michael

http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=53647

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks. It's an interesting story. Hard to know what to make of it. Pro-afterlife folks might say it shows that the mind can survive extreme damage to the brain, and therefore is not tightly or irreducibly dependent on the brain. Skeptics might retort that it shows that a damaged brain is more functional than generally assumed, which could open the door to a neurological explanation of NDEs (or at least some aspects of NDEs).

[michael duggan]

....yes, but a brain during a cardiac arrest is not just damaged, it's gone, totally "offline".

The observation I found most interesting from the Skeptiko podcast is OBE awareness during anaesthesia. It appears to be another strong area of evidence.

[Kris]

I think we do have a tie breaker with this.

NDEs like the Pam Reynolds case. In cases like that we have a patient who heard and saw stuff that the circumstances of her surgery would have made it impossible for her to do under normal means. Or cases like the Al Sullivan case.

The obvious question with the shattered brain case is the issue of memory. If the brain has been shattered how does have memory? The brute answer would seem it is not stored there.

[Kris]

In general there are two explanations for the origins of the mind.

a.) Production Theory.- This states that the mind is produced by the brain.

b.) Transmission Theory- This states that the mind is independent from the brain and the brain acts more like a filter.

Both views have parallels in day to day existence.

The production theory would be like a lamp. The bulb produces the light. Turn off the lamp and the light goes away. Reduce the electricity to the lamp and the light dims. The bulb blows out the light ends. Perfectly normal with production and I would challenge anyone to find some sort of production that does not work this way.

The transmission theory is like a prism. It filters light. I crack the prism it affects the amount of light that goes through. I cover the prism no light comes through. I remove the prism and more light comes through.

On the day to day experiences both theories are equally explanatory. However the theories do make key predictions that do make them separate.

Production theory predicts.

a.) If you damage the brain you damage the mind. Enough damage you destroy the mind. Rationally you cannot have extremely damaged anything that continues producing the substance in question.

b.) No brain, no mind.

If their is no light bulb in my lamp it will not produce light. Simple as that

Transmission theory predicts

a.) the mind can exist at the same level independent of the brain.
b.) damage to the brain will not directly damage the mind , just the minds ability to appear.

Both theories can be falsified.

Production theory can be falsified by the following

a.) finding normal minds with either no brains or
b.) finding normal minds with damaged brains

Transmission theory can be falsified by the following.

a.) demonstrate the production theory or
b.) no positive evidence for it.

Lets look at the state of things now. I for one think the production theory has been falsified.

Individuals with no brains have normal minds.

I. Lorber Study shows that this has happened
II. Alzheimer's Patient's whose memories return to them at the moment of their death.
III. Patients in vegetative states who have normal minds.

The above falsifies production and demonstrates transmission. Transmission is now proven because it made accurate predictions.

However I am not naive enough to think this is the end of the production theory. Materialist and pseudo skeptics are going to continually redefine the production theory in a way that makes it unfalsifiable. They will state yes their are rare exception with people having no brains who have normal minds, but just because production theory cannot explain it now does not mean it ever will...Just because alzheimers does not destroy the mind ( as demonstrated by dying alzheimers patients who memories return) , just demonstrates the mind can be created from the slimmest amount of the brain.... patients who are in vegetative states who have remaining minds now become proof of just how powerful the production explanation is.... Using such explanations though removes the production theory from the realm of science and into the realm of belief. Every falsification of this theory now becomes further evidence for it.

It is like the old joke, the Pope never makes mistakes, we just misunderstand him....

[Michael Prescott]

"but a brain during a cardiac arrest is not just damaged, it's gone, totally 'offline'."

Dr. Nelson disputes this, saying that the brain may still be somewhat functional for the first 10-20 seconds after the onset of cardiac arrest. He also says that in some cases there is a continuing, reduced, irregular flow of blood to the brain which allows for transitory consciousness.

My problem with this is that NDEs seem to be vivid, structured experiences of a kind presumably unlikely to occur in an enfeebled, barely active brain.

But I'm not a neurologist, of course.

Kris, that was a good summary. Thanks.

[Kris]

and how does he explain NDEs that lasted longer then 20 seconds?

[Kris]

Of course NDErs describe their experiences as being more aware then they were ever before, more real then real.

Hum, remove the prism and the light gets stronger....

Which theory does this support?

[Michael Prescott]

Someone emailed this interesting comment to me and asked me to post it, since he is not able to do so.

---

Once in a while I feel compelled to respond to something you've written. In this case it's this comment of yours, "As one example, in his book The Truth in the Light, Peter Fenwick includes a case in which a man hovered over his body but did not see his companions near him. When he returned to his body, he found that one of his companions was actually lying on top of
him (dead) - something he certainly should have seen from an elevated vantage point."

Agreed. This is a troubling inconsistency.

However, what I want to interject is this; I do not believe that out of body experiences or NDEs are a 1 to 1 relationship between the physical world
that we perceive in the 5 senses body and the world that perceive when not using the normal 5 senses.

People tend to talk about these things as if it is only the observer that has changed context, but with a physical world that remains just that; constant, concrete and totally objective.

I have never had an NDE. I have had many OBEs. These started spontaneously - maybe as the result of certain meditation practices - and then I learned to produce them at at will (though I seem to have largely lost that ability over the past decade or so). Being scientifically trained I naturally sought to understand and verify whether or not these were "real" events; meaning whether or not I was actually perceiving an objective reality beyond my own imagination.

My conclusions are that, at least in OBEs, there is some subconscious imagery that comes through that is entirely subjective imagination. Then there is much that is a subjective interpretation of objective reality. There is also fairly normalish perception of an agreed upon objective
reality by non-normal means (meaning I see what you see only I see it from a disembodied point of view). Then there is something stranger. Objective reality is not always what we think it is and in these states of mind (or spirit) we see reality as it is, but people in normal awareness can't relate because they are functioning from certain limited or delusional (if you
will) perceptions. This would be perception of a nonconsensual objective reality.

An example; I was seeking to find verifying evidence beyond what could be written off as coincidence or subconscious cues, etc that the experiences were more than mad dreams. I floated out of body and out into my back yard. I saw a house plant on the ground and focused on it. It was an unusual
tropical plant in a unique pot, lying sideways as if tossed to the ground. This was weird. Where had it come from? I had never seen this plant before as far as I could remember in anyone's house. I knew it hadn't been there earlier in the evening because I had been out in the yard pretty much on that exact spot, I came back to my body (or woke up, whatever) and put on
some clothes and went out to see if the plant was there. It was not.

I was disappointed, but, on the other hand, happy to have to come to a conclusion. The experiences had seemed so real, but at least I had not given in to new age madness. Science had prevailed!

A couple days later I came home in the evening and was blown away. There,
in my backyard was the same plant, in the same pot, lying just as I had seen it in my OBE. I had told no one of the experiment or its outcome. I looked around desperately for a source of the plant. A neighbor on the other side of the fence? No one in sight. No open doors/windows. No explanation. People did not discard trash or other unwanted items into my yard or anyone else's in that neighborhood. This was a highly singular event.

Time and space didn't seem to mean what I thought they did.

But the point here is that while I thought that during my OBE I was viewing the world as it normally exists for me, I clearly was not.

Again, I suspect that it is erroneous to view any NDE/OBE from a materialistic perspective wherein the world is the world and all that has changed is the observers' means of perceiving it.

I have had a number of other experiences that have reinforced this conclusion. The world is far more fluid and multi-dimensional than what we see in our normal 9 to 5 work a day group think habitual way.

Hypothetical; We are going to buy some red apples and put them in a bowl on the counter tomorrow. An NDEr perceives today that there are some green apples in the bowl. The skeptic says this is proof of random neuron firings producing fantasies. The open minded says its a qualified miss. The apples appeared there the next day, but hey, they were red, not green. I would ask
how unusual it is for apples of any kind to be there at any time. Red versus green; that is the part where there is some subjective processing. Today versus tomorrow is an artificial construct of the materialist mind.

You don't want to go too far with this, but you don't want to ignore completely either, IMHO.

I think it would be helpful to at least consider this possibility when
evaluating NDE/OBE perceptions.

Erich

[Michael Prescott]

"and how does he explain NDEs that lasted longer then 20 seconds?"

Continuing, albeit irregular, blood flow to the brain, induced by massaging the heart. I think technically this is called hypoperfusion, because the brain is perfused with blood, but to a lesser extent than usual.

Do I believe this explanation? I do not, for reasons indicated in an earlier comment. But again, I'm not a neurologist.

[Art]

"At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously."
http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

In Michael Talbot's book The Holographic Universe Talbot gives an example of these two women who were in a park in France and were looking out over a balcony at the park. All of a sudden the scene changed and the women were seeing the park as it was 100 years ago.

When information is stored holographically you access different information stored on the holographic piece of film by changing the angle at which you point the laser.

Many near death experiences I've read say that they were able to access all information in the Universe simply by focusing their attention on it. Whatever they wanted to experience all they had to do was simply change the focus of their attention.

I've often thought that Dr. Susan Blackmore may have been seeing the houses in her city from a different time; or perhaps, like a honeybee, after we die our souls are able to see the complete light spectrum rather than just a very narrow range of it. This is why many near death experiences report seeing "more colors than normal."

excerpt from Mark Horton's NDE:
"All I had done was have the mearest fleeting thought of the land and I was there! As I've said, I have no idea why I have such a strong tie to that particular piece of space/time.

I next thought of warm sunshine and I was in a place of bright warm light and comfort. I could discern nothing but a comforting brightness around me (such that "me" was... I still had no "body" that I remember, but had the "feeling" that I was an amorphous, glowing pure intellect... all sensors and no tangi- ble gross physical body to drag me down or contain me. It was a truly wonderful feeling? state? being? Words just don't exist to describe this.) This was very pleasant and comforting and went on for microseconds or billions of years, I have no idea since time just wasn't an operative construct and had no meaning or relevance to existence. I literally had the feeling that I was everywhere in the universe simultaneously."
http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/nde/markh.html

[Cyrus]

Thanks for the kudos!

[Ben]

“But the point here is that while I thought that during my OBE I was viewing the world as it normally exists for me, I clearly was not.

Again, I suspect that it is erroneous to view any NDE/OBE from a materialistic perspective wherein the world is the world and all that has changed is the observers' means of perceiving it.”

I have to agree with this. I’ve been reading the book Daimonic Reality by Patrick Harpur in which he refers to how our view of reality is constructed in 3 complementary ways: by the Anima Mundi, by our Imagination and by our Unconscious (Jungian style). In a way, they’re all one, but can be understood from three perspectives. Here’s one quote to give you a flavour:

“Literalism quite simply presents the greatest stumbling block to our understanding of apparitions and visions...to endow everything physical with only a literal reality is a folly to which our age is particularly prone. In fact nothing physical is only literal…we find that reality is paradoxical, metaphorical, poetic, symbolic, mythic. It is a daimonic, not a literal reality.”

“Literalism leads to idolatry. Idolatry has traditionally meant the worship of false images, but actually it is the false worship of images (there are no false images). To treat our images –ideas, beliefs, theories of causality- as ends instead of means, as absolute instead of relative, is to become petrified in literal-mindedness and to obstruct the free play of Imagination essential to the soul’s health. We become dogmatic, and even fanatical. We become “fundamentalists” – Christians who treat Biblical myths and spiritual truths s historical facts and literal instructions; ufologists who insist on the literal existence of aliens from other planets; materialists who believe in the sole literal realty of matter; crypto-zoologists who believe lake-monsters are literal creatures; scientists who believe in the literal truth of their paradigms and hypotheses. All these people are united in reviling the daimonic.

It is to our discredit that in order to draw attention to their reality, the daimons have been compelled to become physical and fixed, like crop circles. By masquerading as –by parodying- literal facts, they answer our modern requirement for quantifiable effects besides which everything else is deemed illusory. In other words, their way of presenting their own metaphorical, mythical reality is to appear not as literal, but as if they were literal.

Incidentally, I’m so enthralled by the ideas in Daimonic Reality that I’ve just sent off for two of Patrick Harpur’s other books. As I read him in his easygoing style, I find myself being released from the burden of trying to “pin down” or explain anything, except in terms of our cultural and personal expectations. (I should also acknowledge that this is something Michael H has independently suggested many times in this blog.)

[Sandy]

Ben,
Wow. That really resonated with me. You have no idea how badly I want a literal explanation for my experiences. I think if I had just had a NDE and the experience had stayed confined to only that one time, it would be easier for me somehow. What messes things up for me is the fact that years later I get glimpses of that way of being, of being in the NDE place, that make it impossible to come up with the sort of explanation that would make things easy. The NDE, and the NDE place, stay with you all the time.

[Michael Prescott]

"crypto-zoologists who believe lake-monsters are literal creatures"

I'm afraid I don't follow the logic here. Presumably he's talking about the Loch Ness Monster. It seems to me (perhaps simple-mindedly) that either there's a creature in the loch or there isn't. Personally, I think there isn't. But someone could probably make a case for the existence of such a creature. What I can't figure out is how the creature could be there, but not literally. What does that even mean? Is he saying that Nessie is a thought form that comes and goes, or that Nessie is there for some observers and not for others? I don't get it.

[Michael H]

Is he saying that Nessie is a thought form that comes and goes, or that Nessie is there for some observers and not for others?

If I'm understanding him properly, I think he's saying that everything is ultimately a thought-form, MP.

[Cyrus]

I'm not really following this guy's argument either. Australia is not a thought form, it literally exists. The nation of Camdoodle does NOT exist. Pretty big difference between these two nations.

I'd rather see it this way: things either exist in manifested (objective) form or potential (conceptual) form.

A painting would first appear in my mind (if I knew how to paint, which I don't, but anyway...) and the mind creates this concept. It kind of exists in its own little realm, floating around without manifestation.

From here, it can become manifested, where it takes on character and interacts with the rest of reality after I make it real.

Architects are really good at conceptualizing buildings. Through a joint effort the concept becomes reality.

A thought form, like a building that's not yet been constructed, exists in an isolated shell inside your mind. It has no purpose, no sensory element, and it cannot interact with anything. Even the way it interacts inside your mind is dependent on outcomes you create for it.

Therefore, no "thought form" can interact without first being created. Loch Ness Monster is either objective or not. Even if Loch Ness Monster were a phantom, that "phantom" is either objective or not. Even ghosts, or whatever you want to call it, exist in the real world where they interact with others.

If everything floating around in conceptualization land in our heads had the ability to simply manifest at will, we would be in SERIOUS trouble.

[Michael H]

If everything floating around in conceptualization land in our heads had the ability to simply manifest at will, we would be in SERIOUS trouble.

Seems to me that the reason most see the world as already in serious trouble is that few realize how much of the stuff floating around in our heads does manifest at will.

[Ben]

What I can't figure out is how the creature could be there, but not literally. What does that even mean? Is he saying that Nessie is a thought form that comes and goes, or that Nessie is there for some observers and not for others? I don't get it. -MP

Loch Ness Monster is either objective or not. Even if Loch Ness Monster were a phantom, that "phantom" is either objective or not. Even ghosts, or whatever you want to call it, exist in the real world where they interact with others. -Cyrus.

Patrick Harpur argues that there are plenty of things we experience which do not physically exist except for the moments we experience them. His book shows how similar are many paranormal manifestations of all kinds on the edges of experience. These include bigfoot, yeti, black dogs, white ladies, lake monsters (there are plenty of these all over the world), big cats, ufos (with their aliens), the Blessed Virgin Mary, and fairies of all kinds. (He says we tend to see ufos instead of fairies these days because of our cultural expectations.) In all cases, “evidence” is only ever enough to convince the believer and/or the witness, never the unbeliever –and it will be ever thus, unless perhaps a culture widens to allow them to permanently enter our reality. I am reminded of the film “Forbidden Planet”. Eventually the monster had to be seen for what it was –something from the unconscious. (Harpur also suggests these daimons erupt out of the soul of the world -the Anima Mundi- following Plato’s Timaeus.)

Anyway, Patrick Harpur takes the position that many of the people experiencing “impossible” events are credible witnesses. That these events are experienced (like Sandy’s) is beyond doubt. He categorises many of them and tries to explain that they do not originate in physical reality, but can take on physical form, though never long enough to convince folks who believe things must be physical (and stay physical) to be real. It is a useful point of view, because it explains how there can be (say) a bigfoot, but the bones are never found and one is never shot (even when cornered).

(I suppose one (semi-literal!) way of looking at the paranormal would be to consider that thought-forms manifest by using etheric matter (which would be close to the physical plane – spiritualists would probably look on it this way –think ectoplasm): entities can take on physical form for a short while in response to the local psychic atmosphere, but then they dissipate.)

[Ade]

Kris

Regarding the part about Jhon Lorber`s research, I think we should be very careful about that, as much as physicalist have to be about split-brain patients, because many Hydrocephalic patients don`t have their brains completely destroyed just very very compresed. One of the objections made against Lorber`s claims is that his results were overplayed and some of his subjects, even the ones that scored very high in the IQ tests, did have coordination problems and difficulties with spatial imagination and the CAT scanners they used at that time werent as precisse as today`s MRI. Still the damage made to the patient`s brains was tremenduous (aparently they weighted less than the average), and Lorber said that he would not make such claims without any evidence.

These cases also makes me wonder why natural selection favored the development of such ridiculous and even dangerously big brains.

For those interest here is an article about Lorber:
www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.html

[Kris]

Michael Duggan made similar objections earlier on paranormalia.

here is what he said

" Kris,

It appears that in these hydrocephalus cases, the white matter (glial cells) are displaced and the grey matter (neurons) are compacted together and pushed to the periphery. This doesn't necessarily indicate a loss in the NUMBER of cells, but only in the volume of the brain. Here we have a plausible explanation for the retention of modest intellectual capability, without resorting to esoteric models of cognitive functioning. Would you agree?"

My ultimate response to this

"The Lorber study analyzed people affected by hydrocephalus. This literally “means water on the brain” and is in fact cranial fluid. Cranial fluid fills the skull to a degree ranging from a little to 95% of it. Of course having this fluid displaces brain matter in an equal ratio. However this is not to imply a direct shrinkage. By this I mean the brain is not directly shrunk in direct ratio to the amount of cranial fluid. In a hypothetical case 30% of the cerebral fluid could be located in just the cerebrum, leaving the rest of the brain. Other cases with a greater amount cranial fluid would of course displace more of the brain material. The most common amount of brain matter displaced seems to be the cerebrum.

I think your argument about the cerebellum has some merit for this reason.

a.) it is only 10 % of the total volume of the brain but it is about 50% of its total mass. It contains about 80 percent of the total neurons in the brain.

So in theory you could wipe out 90% of the brain and still retain 80 percent of the neurons.

However, the problem with this argument is that some people have cranial fluid filling 95% of the brain, in this case you are by default having to hit neurons in the cerebellum. So in this case we need to remember that the cerebellum is 85 % neurons and 15 percent glial cells . So shrinking it in half you have now done the following

You have gone from 16 billion glial cells and 69 billion neuron cells to 8 billion glial cells and 34.5 billion neurons. That is a hammer blow to the total amount of neuron cells in the brain.

Next you need to remember the total amount of neuron cells in the average brain is as follows.

cerebellum-69 billion
cerebral cortex- 16 billion

So you have a total of 85 billion neuron cells

so now you have remaining 34.5 billion neuron cells out of the original 85 billion ( remember the 95% would have destroyed the cerebral cortex) which is approximately 40 percent remaining. So that 40% has to now create the mind. Here is the problem:

You would expect all the patients in this case to be retarded. However the evidence is that they are not. This is what the Lorber Study reported:

Of the last group ( the group with 95% or more), which comprised less than 10% of the study, half were profoundly retarded. The remaining half had IQs greater than 100. Half are not what normal models of the mind would predict. ( last sentence my words ,not Lorbers)

Let’s go back to the study again and relook at the math student:

Later, a colleague at Sheffield University became aware of a young man with a larger than normal head. He was referred to Lorber even though it had not caused him any difficulty. Although the boy had an IQ of 126 and had a first class honours degree in mathematics, he had "virtually no brain". A noninvasive measurement of radio density known as CAT scan showed the boy's skull was lined with a thin layer of brain cells to a millimeter in thickness. The rest of his skull was filled with cerebrospinal fluid. The young man continues a normal life with the exception of his knowledge that he has no brain.

From what it would seem here is a case where an individual was missing his cerebellum too. So now then where is consciousness created? You literally have nothing.

However this is not all of your problems. You need to consider the following
For all this discussion of the cerebellum we have skipped over a major fact. The cerebellum is NOT the part of the brain responsible for higher thought, language, learning, memory and voluntary movement that is in fact the role of the cerebrum. This is most often the part of the brain first destroyed by hydrocephalus. The cerebellum is responsible just for balance and coordination. So your argument requires a part of the brain to take over a role that it is not designed for. That would bring us to the issue of plasticity.

The argument from plasticity has merit but it also has rational limits.

Healing in mammals is not the same thing as replacement. For example if my leg is amputated, eventually the stump will scar. However a new leg does not grow back. Using this analogy we would not expect plasticity to grow back destroyed regions of the brain and that is exactly what we find.

Let’s consider the very rare cases of people being born without any legs. Often times these poor individuals learn to walk on their hands. However this walking is never the same quality as people who walk using their legs. So we see while a body part can engage in secondary roles it does it in a subpar manner. This is what one would expect of the brain if the cerebellum was taking over but that is not what happens in all the cases. And remember we have at least one case where a person has no cerebellum to take over.

So I do not think the argument from plasticity works here.

Another issue your argument hinges on is that glial cells have no use in the mental process. However that is debatable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glial_cell

Here is what it says.

"Recent research indicates that glial cells of the hippocampus and cerebellum participate in synaptic transmission, regulate the clearance of neurotransmitters from the synaptic cleft, release factors such as ATP, which modulate presynaptic function, and even release neurotransmitters themselves."

So if that is correct your argument that we do not need glial cells per say is wrong and your entire argument collapses."

____________________________________________
The problem with the coordination issue and spatial imagination is this. These are not per say mind issues, but how the mind relates to the brain. How did a virtually none existent brain make a mind using the production theory?

Of course cat scans are better now days, as they will be better 10 years from now but were the ones that Lorber used truly defective?

[sonic]

Cyrus-
I understand your frustration. I wish I could say more---

Kris-
There was a man in France with small brain recently. The neurologists were shocked to see such a thing. I wonder how they couldn't know about such cases.

[william]

“Fables, folklore, legends, superstition and error find fertile soil. But of truth Albert Pike said:”

"There is a singular obliquity in the human mind that makes false logic more effective than the true with nine-tenths of those who are regarded as men of intellect. . . . Each mind sees the truth, distorted through its own medium."

Life and Its Mysteries, by Frank L. Hammer, [1945], at sacred-texts.com

[sonic]

The comments Michael made about consciousness are interesting to me.
Currently there is no objective test for consciousness. We can ask- "Is a dog conscious?" but we have no way of objectively determining that. (No measurement of consciousness exists.)
Doctors have to some extent agreed on what constitutes consciousness and how to determine it (verbal and reaction tests for example).
I would point out that given that they are asked to make life and death decisions based on their adjudication, it is reasonable for them to overestimate their certainty.
How else could such decisions be made?
I found this to be the case in the hospital where I worked- the best doctors would act from certainty, not confusion.
This is an interesting situation because on the one hand we wish the doctors would give a better assessment on the actual state of knowledge, but on the other hand we must thank god that this attitude allows them to do the impossible job they do as well as they do it.
I must try to learn to love more.

[Erich]

test

[Erich]

Nice. I disabled the surf control on my corporate laptop and can post comments using it.....

"I'm afraid I don't follow the logic here. Presumably he's talking about the Loch Ness Monster. It seems to me (perhaps simple-mindedly) that either there's a creature in the loch or there isn't. "

I think, Michael, that the problem is that you are coming from a very rigid materialist perspective (no offense or criticism intended).

Here is an alternative with which I think Harpur would agree; Loch Ness may produce a feeling - contains a spirit if you will - that makes some people at some times see "Nessie". In certain states of mind people see UFOs with their little green men, etc.

The prism of rigid materialism is one way to view the world, but it is just that. Through that prism Nessie most likely does not exist (i.e. there has been no evidence of the sort that that mind set understands).

There are other prisms through which the world can be viewed. Let's call one of those the "prism of the heart" for lack of better terminology(our words are so biased toward rigid materialism that it is near impossible to talk about anything else).

Through this prism we perceive the world according to how it impacts our feelings, primal energies and psyche. When viewing the world through this prism there might very well be a sea monster in Loch Ness.

Here is the thing that the modern european based mentality cannot accept easily; neither prism is producing a more or less accurate or valid picture of reality than the other.

As an aside, IMHO, synchronicities and similar events that we can more readily accept as being "real" regardless of our primary orientation are coming from this prism of the heart.

Someone will probably be tempted to respond that a "real" aquatic beast, like a great white shark, is more real than Nessie because the if you jump in the water with the shark you can be torn to shreds and eaten; whereas no one has ever - or likely ever will be - eaten by a Nessie.

I would argue that some creatures, beings, spirits from the soul of the world can be just as dangerous and have probably "eaten" many more people than real material beasts.
After all what is it that deep down inside creates a Hitler and a nation of followers, creates bodily illnesses, drives people insane? Think of Jesus casting out demons and healing in this way.

[Michael Prescott]

"I think, Michael, that the problem is that you are coming from a very rigid materialist perspective"

This may be the first time anyone has said that to me!

"Through this prism we perceive the world according to how it impacts our feelings, primal energies and psyche."

It's an interesting idea. But it would seem to open the door to any and all claims, with no possibility of ever testing or verifying (or falsifying) them. There would be no distinction between perception and imagination. Though I recognize that the line of demarcation between "objective" and "subjective" can be blurry, I don't think I'm willing to go quite this far.

Still, you may be on to something. For instance, the persistent folklore about fairies and other "little people" might conceivably have some sort of basis in "primal energies" that the physical senses and reasoning mind can't recognize.

[Erich]

MP,

I hear you. I think you are a very reasonable guy and that's why I enjoy reading your posts.

There are way too many instances of fraud, of mental illness, of well meant yet mistaken explanations, fairy tales, over-active imagination, all masquerading as the paranormal.

As I originally stated, I do believe that there is overlap between the paranormal and the material, "There is also fairly normalish perception of an agreed upon objective reality by non-normal means (meaning I see what you see only I see it from a disembodied point of view)".

And it appears this is the place where you have - correctly and necessarily - chosen to make your stand. It is the only place where the different camps can meet and discuss in familiar terms.

[Erich]

P.S. "This may be the first time anyone has said that to me!"

I ask that you please excuse me. I am something of an aquarian revolutionary. I am coming from what could be called a totally shamanistic perspective and sometimes my frustration with the prevailing western materialism gets the better of me.

[Ben]

That's funny, Erich - a shaman with a corporate laptop. Do you use it to buy your Ayahuasca online ;-)

[Tony M]

"It seems to me (perhaps simple-mindedly) that either there's a creature in the loch or there isn't"

Michael, I recommend The Goblin Universe, by Ted Holiday. It is speculative rather than evidential, but his suggestion is that phenomena such as UFOs, lake monsters, fairies and the like come from a common source - possibly something interdimentional, and possibly telepathic, that reflects our thoughts back to us.

It reads more plausible than it sounds...

[Michael Prescott]

"I recommend The Goblin Universe, by Ted Holiday."

Amazon lists a book of that title, but the author is Adam Rourke. Is it the same book?

[Art]

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." - Niels Bohr
------------------------

The only thing stopping my hands from floating right down through the desk they are sitting on are the negative charges of the electrons in my hand repelling the negative charges of the electrons in the wood the desk is made out of. The strange thing is that atoms are mostly ghostly empty space, and the sub atomic particles themselves inside the atoms are hardly like anything we've come to associate as matter. Sub atomic particles are able to appear and disappear, communicate with one another, sometimes appearing as waves and sometimes as particles, and sometimes even seeming to communicate with the people who study them! Everything we call real is made up of stuff that we might hardly consider to be real!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
excerpt from Mysterious Light by Dr. Peter Russell:
"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. Somewhat ironically, science, having set out to know the ultimate nature of reality, is discovering that not only is this world beyond any direct experience, it may also be inherently unknowable."
http://twm.co.nz/prussell_bio.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
quote from The Universe as a Hologram:
"For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion."
http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and lastly a quote from Michelle's NDE:
"I felt an understanding about life, what it was, is. As if it was a dream in itself. It's so very hard to explain this part. I'll try, but my words limit the fullness of it. I don't have the words here, but I understood that it really didn't matter what happened in the life experience, I knew/understood that it was intense, brief, but when we were in it, it seemed like forever. I understood that whatever happened in life, I was really ok, and so were the others here."
http://www.nderf.org/michelle_m's_nde.htm

[Art]

Okay, I'm sorry I can't stifle myself....

Michael Talbot says in The Holographic Universe that all that kind of stuff, UFO's, Angels, Marian Visions, gnomes, trolls, ghosts, spirits, fairies, leprechauns, etc. are holographic projections from the collective unconscious. I suppose UFO's are seen more frequently now because folks believe more in UFO's than they do in fairies, gnomes, trolls, leprechauns, etc. Another words, it's a holographic universe thing!

[Erich]

Ben, I guess that is kind of funny now that you mention it. Hey, everyone has to make a buck these days. Besides,corporate america is not so tough once you understand a few underlying principles of it works. Play the game, have fun and take the money and use it to do what you really do.

Ayahusca online. Never occurred to me. I am off to Google!

[Tony M]

Michael:

Here's a link to it on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Goblin-Universe-Llewellyns-Psi-tech/dp/0875423108

The preface by Colin Wilson offers some context. Holiday makes a similar argument to Jacques Vallee about UFOs not being "nuts and bolts" ships, but a more complex phenomena. It's unprovable, of course, but I find that it makes a peculiar amount of sense

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks for the link, Tony M. I ordered the book.

Oddly, there's another book by the same title with similar subject matter. Confusing ...

[Erich]

Art, as a long time reader of this blog I have developed some level of appreciation for your holograph theory.

That being said, I do not think the universe is a giant holograph. It may behave in some was like one and thus it may be useful at times to use the analogy, IMO, but in the end we are, as always, merely using currently popular words to talk around what cannot be described directly.

There is a danger when we forget that we are only creating mythical paradigms with words and we start believing them to be final and absolute explanations.

[Patrick]

Cardiac arrest typically destroys EEG activity in 10-20 seconds, and it dramatically reduces the flow of oxygen, blood, and nutrients (including glucose). The issue is not whether there may be some tiny fraction of brain activity leftover, but rather:

1. NDEs (including those after onset of cardiac arrest) often include a dramatic INcrease in cognition - in speed and quality of thinking, in memory, in control of one's thoughts, etc. Why would a massive reduction in the brain's resources increase its power? Even hallucinations within a fully-functioning brain do not have this feature.

2. Such NDEs also sometimes involve accurate perception of people/events that are beyond the subject's normal visual/auditory range* (sometimes in persons born blind...)

(* although, even IF they were within normal range, it wouldn't matter because the brain would be too damaged to pick up such info, but I digress...)

These experiences are usually different from those caused by anoxia, drugs, etc.

I still haven't seen a skeptic acknowledge these points

[Art]

"Art, as a long time reader of this blog I have developed some level of appreciation for your holograph theory. That being said, I do not think the universe is a giant holograph." - Eric
--------------------------------------------

There is a chapter in Dr. Ken Ring's book Life At Death that talks about the connection between the holographic universe theory and NDE's. When Dr. Ring taught a course at the University of Connecticut he required his students to buy a copy of Michael Talbot's book The Holographic Universe and read because people who have NDE's routinely describe them in terms that can only be called "Holographic". Near death experiencers say things that sound like they are straight out of Michael Talbot's book.

In Dr. Melvin Morse's book Where God Lives he devotes several pages to talking about the connection between NDE's and the Holographic Universe and how similar they are.

Dr. Oswald Harding wrote another book called Near Death Experiences: A Holographic Universe and the whole book is about the connection between NDE's and The Holographic Universe.

In the January 2010 online edition of New Scientist Magazine there is an article about how they have found evidence of the holographic nature of our universe. It has to do with the blurriness that is inherent in a holographic projection which is interesting because near death experiencers routinely say that after they crossed over into Heaven that it seemed even more real to them than this reality does, which makes sense if other side is the holographic film from which this side derives from.

There are numerous other articles in Scientific American, National Geographic, etc. that mention or talk about the holographic nature of the Universe.

The good thing about my belief system is that I doubt it matters what we believe. I'm fairly well convinced that the Creator of the Universe was so smart that He/She was able to create a universe where the soul is holistically imprinted with what it needs to learn regardless of who we are, or where we live, or what we believe. And I also believe that everyone becomes instantly enlightened when they enter that light.

[Art]

"Dr. Oswald Harding wrote another book called Near Death Experiences: A Holographic Universe"
---------------------------------

Excuse me, Near Death Experiences: A Holographic Explanation

[Zerdini]

Art wrote: And I also believe that everyone becomes instantly enlightened when they enter that light.

You may have that belief, Art, but it is not what spirit communicators tell us when they make the transition. They tell us that they are the same one minute after passing over as they were one minute before. This explains why so many people don't realise they are 'dead'.

[Art]

"You may have that belief, Art, but it is not what spirit communicators tell us when they make the transition." - Zerdini
--------------------------------------------

Yeah, and that conflicts with what many near death experiencers report, so take your pick? I prefer to believe near death experiencers because it parallels what one might expect in a holographic universe where everything is infinitely connected to everything else and where everything infinitely interpenetrates everything. What one knows we will all know. Another words, on the other side, we are all equal. The duality we experience in this life doesn't exist in the next. It's a by-product of that overwhelming feeling of oneness and connectedness on the other side that is reported on so often in NDE descriptions. Near death experiencers say things like "I felt an overwhelming sense of oneness and connectedness" or "I felt like I was connected to the entire Universe" or "I literally felt like I was everywhere in the Universe at once." It's a constant theme in NDE descriptions. It's a holographic universe thing. In a holographic piece of film all the information is spread through the entire piece of film. Each piece contains the whole.

Beverly Brodskys NDE:
"I was given more than just the answers to my questions; all knowledge unfolded to me,"
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/judaism02.html

Jan Price's NDE:
"All knowledge was mine, and I could draw it into conscious"
www.near-death.com/experiences/animals01.html

Cynthi K NDE
"I looked back over my shoulder away from the plateau and I could see it all. I realized the reason for everything. I had all knowledge."
http://www.nderf.org/cynthi_k_nde.htm

Jen V NDE
"I had a sense that all knowledge that was to be had, was there for my knowing if I so chose."
http://www.nderf.org/jen_v_ndelike.htm

I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of stuff that comes from "spirit communicators" gets all mixed up with the mind of the Mediums. What the Medium believes to be true. A lot of stuff that is popular to believe in at the time, like reincarnation and different levels, etc. is preached at seances and a good bit of it just stuff that is popular to believe in at the time. I'm very sorry but I don't believe the duality we experience in this life exists in the next. None of it, and that includes different levels.

[Zerdini]

Hi Art

You say: I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of stuff that comes from "spirit communicators" gets all mixed up with the mind of the Mediums. What the Medium believes to be true. A lot of stuff that is popular to believe in at the time, like reincarnation and different levels, etc. is preached at seances and a good bit of it just stuff that is popular to believe in at the time.

I do not dispute that the subconscious mind of the medium may interfere with what is communicated but then so may the mind of the NDE'rs as well.

Instead of basing your views and beliefs on a single book i.e. "The Holographic Universe" you might also consider other books with a different viewpoint. It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that you know very little about mediumship/Spiritualism from personal experience and simply rely on your ingrained beliefs.

Over the last 50 years I've met many people who have had near-death experiences as I've also come to know many mediums whose spirit communicators hold very different views to that of their mediums.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, whether duality continues in the next world or not, makes not the slightest bit of difference in the final analysis.

Best wishes.

[Art]

"whether duality continues in the next world or not, makes not the slightest bit of difference in the final analysis." - Zerdini
-------------------------------------------

Yes it does. When you say that one person is more enlightened than another and that they exist on a higher vibrational level it assumes that one person is more knowledgeable or enlightened than another on the other side. The same is true for the reincarnation story. It assumes that some folks are "old souls" and others are at a lower level, which is exactly the situation we experience in the physical universe. People who made up those stories assume that the same "duality" we experience in this life will exist in the next and I'm telling you that it doesn't. I won't be any smarter or enlightened or knowledgeable in Heaven than a hillbilly from the mountains of East Tennessee after we cross over. We will all be equal. What one knows we will all know. The duality we experience in this life won't exist in the next, and that includes one soul existing in a higher level than another or someone needing to be reincarnated so they can experience and learn more on this side. There are a few simple things in this life that can only be understood if you experience them, time and space, duality and separation, and what it was like to live in a physical body. The stuff that we learn in this life is the kind of stuff that can only be really understood by doing, like driving a car or riding a bike or making love to another person. All stuff that has to be experienced to be understood, but all that other stuff, emotional and psychological, and spiritual, that will all be shared on the other side.

[Zerdini]

Art if that is your belief - fine.

When (or if) we meet on the Other Side we will know the truth of survival.

The situation may be very different from what you believe if the personal testimony from those who are living there is to be believed.

Personal testimony constantly contradicts theory.

[Art]

The first Noble Truth of Buddhism is "all life is suffering" and one of the most universal ways that we suffer in this life is by experiencing separation from the moment we are born till the day we die and our death's become a lesson in separation to the loved ones we leave behind. Loved ones die, we move and leave friends behind, divorce, children grow up and leave their parents, and we can even feel emotional separation from people we live with in the same house.

A very common theme that is reiterated over and over again in NDE's is the feelings of oneness and connectedness and feeling connected to the entire Universe. And though sometimes we feel that in this life, it is uncommon and not universal meaning that very few people are privileged to experience that. It is normally just something that people who have transcendental or mystical experiences feel.

My beliefs are based on reading literally thousands of near death experiences, death bed visions, and numerous popular science books. I have been reading about and studying "life after death" for ten years. I recently counted and I have over 80 books in my "life after death" collection. I have read quite a few books about the work of Mediums and some of them I find very interesting, Eileen Garrett being one of my favorites. There are some things I consider to be "here" things and some I think of as "there" things. Separation seems to be a "here" thing, and "connectedness and oneness" seems to be a "there" thing. And I honestly don't believe the duality we experience in this life will exist in the next, and some folks being more spiritual or "higher" in the next life, or better, goes completely against everything I identify as heaven.

[Zerdini]

@Art I have been reading about and studying "life after death" for ten years. I recently counted and I have over 80 books in my "life after death" collection.

I have been studying "life after death" for over fifty years and have over 550 books (at the last count) in my collection the earliest dating back to 1850.

We can bandy statistics back and forth but personal experiences are of more interest to me.

I have read quite a few books about the work of Mediums and some of them I find very interesting, Eileen Garrett being one of my favorites.

I have all the Eileen Garrett books and though quite interesting there are far more interesting ones available.

And I honestly don't believe the duality we experience in this life will exist in the next, and some folks being more spiritual or "higher" in the next life, or better, goes completely against everything I identify as heaven.

Quite honestly I don't have much interest in 'beliefs' - more in what can be demonstrated and that is where true mediumship has the edge. Admittedly it is rare but it is no less true for all that.

I respect your views on duality and what you 'identify as heaven' but that doesn't make them true, well not to me anyway.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread. I don't think I can add anything further.

[Erich]

Art,

A while back I posted an experience on that site you have been referencing.

http://www.oberf.org/erich_a_obe.htm

I'm with Zerdini on this topic. I think you may be indulging in some cherry picking.

[Erich]

This is the section I was specifically refering to: "Is there anything else you would like to add concerning the experience? Yes. 10 years later, on the anniversary of the crash, my wife, my daughter and I all had similar dreams concerning my mother. She - her soul - was not in a good place. She was suffering, confused and chaotic and still in shock and horror and denial about what had happened (and over a couple other things as well)............ "

I have seen a soul in what can only be desribed as hell. Not enlightened. Not understanding everything. Quite the opposite; angry, confused, resentful.....

In the last couple of years I have been doing some research in an effort to help me process this and other experiences. If one has the discipline to avoid those books that are clearly all about making the reader feel good with tales only of loving light, happy passed over relatives and peace and joy, one does encounter ample accounts of mundane to hellish after life existances.