IMG_2361
Blog powered by Typepad

« Separated at death? | Main | Sunday fun day »

Comments

Excellent exegetic post Michael.

I do the same for various areas of Parapsychology. Some areas are much stronger than others. The evidence for healing effects in living organisms (for example) is not as strong as the massive database on PK-RNG experiements. The free response Ganzfeld database is stronger and more consistent than the remote viewing database. However, I would still be convinced of the reality of psi, based on these respective "inferior" databases as even these are statistically robust and counter explanations (file drawer, faulty methodology and statistics, experimenter and subject fraud) seem incapable of troubling the psi hypothesis.
The Global Consciousness Project is particular nightmarish for those of a materialist bent!

I never really appreciated the older evidence from psychical research, until reading your post.

Great post. I think that ganzfeld experiments using "gifted" subjects, i.e., artistically inclined people, provide excellent psi evidence. And the experimental results are repeatable according to reports I've read about the subject.

Sorry to go a bit off topic, but by far the best evidence for psi, absolute proof in fact, is personal experience of the phenomena. I've had a few such experiences, in the form of vivid, complex precognitive dreams.

Carl, personal experiences will only ever convince the experient. These don't offer any real proof to anybody else, unless they can be objectively verified, i.e., OBE's during cardiac arrest, etc.

Excellent post, Michael, thank you! :)

Good point. If I ever told anyone of the details of my precognitive experiences, they wouldn't be convinced of anything. And because of the great amount of detail involved, they would probably be bored to tears.

The phrase "absolute proof" I used is somewhat off-putting. Maybe "top-quality wheat" is more fitting. Also, amend the post to say "by far the best evidence of psi to me . . ."

I agree that those near-death accounts only have real value if they include things like "I was surprised to see my brother-in-law down the hall and he was telling my wife that he couldn't stay long at the hospital because he was on the way to the vet with his cat, and etc. etc."

Carl, were the ganzfeld tests only done on gifted individuals? I could be mistaken about this, but I was under the impression that ganzfeld work could actually get some fairly good results with almost anyone.

Sandy, typically, the average person can shift the guessing rate to 33% correct choices (where chance would give 25%, 1 in 4). When creative people have been studied (for example by Honorton testing Julliard students) the it rate climbs to 40 - 50%. Throw in those creatives who have had previous psychic experiences and the hit rate shoots to 70%.

http://dbem.ws/ganzfeld.html

Sandy, I believe ganzfeld experiments on ordinary folks were getting good results in many cases. But tests with artistic types gave even better results. Dean Radin has done interesting writing on this topic.

Thanks for the info, Michael D and Carl. I still find it interesting that ordinary people can get 33%. It doesn't surprise me that musicians would score so well. So much of creating music depends on the ability musicians have to connect and cooperate with each other while playing in a group situation.

Sometimes it's hard to know what is good information and what is disinformation. And sometimes people may innocently pass on disinformation because they aren't aware it is disinformation. Sometimes, even if you take something with a grain of salt, it helps to make a note of it because you may come across something else later that lends credence to it.


Interesting post, Michael. Got me thinking.

"It's probably natural to become less skeptical about certain areas of evidence when you have overcome your initial skepticism in related areas. "

For me, this is a huge part of the equation. Because if I were to answer the question "If this were the only evidence I had for a particular claim, would I believe it?" the answer would always be no. My openness to any claim of psi is always based on my acceptance of prior data and/or my own experiences.

When I read about anomalous claims in areas that are unfamiliar, I may be intrigued, but I'm never really convinced until I can begin to correlate the new claim to the experiences of others.

I'm so glad you mentioned Carol Bowman, by the way. Her "Return to Heaven" is one of the most persuasive books I've ever read.

"Sorry to go a bit off topic, but by far the best evidence for psi, absolute proof in fact, is personal experience of the phenomena. I've had a few such experiences, in the form of vivid, complex precognitive dreams."

Yes! I remember clearly that there was a period of time in which I was hopelessly on the fence about the reality of psi. Despite the fact that I was strongly impressed by a wide variety of books and researchers, it was not until I began recognizing my seemingly precognitive dreams, recording them, and doing science (as best I could) with them, that the scales finally tipped for me.

I remember clearly one strange and vivid dream and its aftermath—and have it thoroughly documented, too—that finally made me say to myself: That's it! I've now reached the point where if I had to bet my own good money on whether or not psi truly exists, I would say yes.

"Carl, personal experiences will only ever convince the experient. "
Perhaps, Michael. But I wonder if anyone is ever truly convinced of psi without having had some sort of compelling experience. MP, for example, has described a few of his own experiences, and I found them interesting, to say the least.

So here's a question to the group: Is there anyone here who is convinced of the existence of psi, but has not had any experience of their own that would tend to confirm it? Or at the very least, the experience of a spouse or very close friend?

So here's a question to the group: Is there anyone here who is convinced of the existence of psi, but has not had any experience of their own that would tend to confirm it? Or at the very least, the experience of a spouse or very close friend?

That's a great question! It seems like everyone that I've talked to or corresponded with who is convinced of psi always has had some kind of personal experience. It is a bit disheartening though. I'd like the evidence to be enough to convince someone, but I don't think it works that way.

I showed a university professor that I trust how I make my pk wheel turn. She was so excited to see it happen, she even tried it herself and got it to work. Then she sent me out of the room and tried it just to make sure I wasn't doing some kind of trick and it still worked.

Since then, she hasn't been able to move the wheel the way she could that first time. She gets it to move slightly, but it won't spin rapidly the way that it did before. She's seen me do it a few times since then. I had it working at the campus coffee shop just a few days ago for her.

She thinks that after that initial experience, doubt about her ability to move the wheel has set in and stopped it from working. She's a scientist and has gone over and discounted a number of mundane explanations for the wheel moving. She thinks that logically pk is now possible. But the idea that pk is possible for her to do just doesn't agree with her. It is a difficult obstacle to overcome.

"But the idea that pk is possible for her to do just doesn't agree with her. It is a difficult obstacle to overcome."

Yes, and despite all the apparently precognitive dreams I've had in the past fifteen years—some quite impressive, I think— there's still a part of me that goes: "C'mon Bruce. Who are you trying to kid?!"

Nevertheless, as I've said, if I had to put money on it, I'd go with the "it's real." Seeing as I don't have a lot of money to spare, that's saying something. :o)

Bruce, what amazed me is that as soon as I had confided in her, she started telling me about her own experiences. She said that she had put those things out of her mind for such a long time, but now she is very curious again. She's even been coming up with fun psi tests for us to try together. She sent me out water witching last time.

It's almost easier to believe in psi as a group than it is alone. When we're alone, there is a tendency to forget.

Cool, Sandy! You must be enjoying her newfound openness.

"It's almost easier to believe in psi as a group than it is alone. When we're alone, there is a tendency to forget."

Yeah—I guess it takes some courage to believe in stuff that many are quick to label nonsense. It's like being a heretic.

Bruce, that's part of it, but not all of it. I really do think there is a tendency to forget psi experiences.

If I hadn't written things down, many of those experiences would be lost. I had forgotten about experiences that I had gone through as a teenager until I found an old journal. As soon as I read them, I remembered, but it was so odd to have forgotten. The professor I mentioned says that she had forgotten many experiences too, but now they are flooding back.

For some reason, psi functioning doesn't seem to like to be observed or remembered.

A possible approach to this problem is to ask yourself, "If this were the only evidence I had for a particular claim, would I believe it?" In this way, you can separate lines of investigation that otherwise might run together in your thoughts.

The only evidence that would convince me ( and has done) is that which I have experienced myself.

Even then, it has been the accumulation of evidence over many years through different types of mediumship plus personal psi experiences that has been the clincher.

Other examples, as stated by Michael, have simply been confirmatory to my own experiences.


The only evidence that would convince me ( and has done) is that which I have experienced myself.

That says it all, doesn't it?

I can't even argue against this stance because I'm no different. Does that mean that the paradigm shift will never come? It seems a bit much to ask to have to provide the opportunities for personal experiences to enough scientists to make a difference in how things like survival of consciousness are considered.

When I've done the pk wheel stuff in front of people, some of them get these really far away looks on their faces when they watch the wheel spin. I didn't understand what the big deal was. It's just a little paper wheel spinning. It's not very exciting, really. I guess it comes down to it being a personal experience, even if it isn't all that exciting.

Michael,
Until I had my own experiences to go by I was pretty skeptical. I read many people's accounts but somewhere inside there would still be a nagging doubt. When something, be it psychically or mediumistically happens to you it does open your mind to the possibility. Seeing is believing for sure.

Thanks for the great information.

Angela, your website mentions you being an intuitive. When did your experiences start? Did you always have them and finally recognised them for what they were, or were they triggered by a particular event or situation?

Sandy's comment on the 33% having an effect when the odds are 25% is interesting.

Assuming the sample size is large enough to be significant, would this not support the idea that the ability being tested (in this case telepathy I think) is universally available to some extent? It is a shame that there seems to be so little research into it at present.

I wonder how often this ability is used without our even being aware of it?

Paul, Dean Radin gives a talk where he addresses this kind of thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

Psi functioning may be like musical ability, with a bell curve shaped distribution. Most people have some musical ability. A few people are tone deaf. And a few are very talented.

Thanks Sandy. I like Dean Radin's work. The music analogy is probably a good one. I am definitely on the left hand side of the x axis in both fields :)

Suppose Michael Prescott's blog was the only evidence of psi and related phenomena. Would you believe it?

You betcha. He shows careful critical thinking combined with sparkling open mindedness. Zesty without getting your lap wet. Cheers!

Thanks for the kind words, Tharpa ... but if my blog were the only evidence, even I wouldn't believe it!

:-)

Would I believe anything based on one source of information that I couldn't validate myself?

Hm. I am not so sure. I think it would depend what was at stake. I have read masses of evidence supporting survival. Do I believe we survive physical death? - I think it is difficult to dismiss out of hand but I wouldn't insist it was true. Does that mean I believe it, or not?

Zerdini wrote: "The only evidence that would convince me ( and has done) is that which I have experienced myself."

This is crossing over the threshold between strong belief and certain knowledge. I'm sure this remark really applies to everyone and no written evidence, no matter how well researched and documented, can convince anyone absolutely.

For me, the near death experience has been the convincing factor. I can't find a problem with accepting them as what they appear to be. Somebody else said this somewhere (can't recall who it was)...but if we do not accept them as what they appear to be then what on earth are they...and what would we accept as evidence of survival. The OBE followed by the tunnel(or not as the case may be)into the glorious light, overwhelming joyous reunion with deceased loved ones etc, it fully satisfies.
Set against this of course, we have the objections- DMT can reproduce all the same effects(no it can't) so can special K(no it can't)...OBE's can be artificially induced(yes..but this is only a play on words)
The people that have the experience are satisfied that they have been to heaven. Wouldn't we all be if we had a NDE ?

I agree Trev- reading accounts on the NDERF website has been very powerful, inspirational reading for me. Very convincing, even when factoring in some cultural and personal conditioning/interpretation into the mix.

Personal experience is clearly the gold standard in any real conviction- but interpretation, projection and just plain fantasy's work on memory can play a part our egos may not want to or be able to cop to.

On the other hand intuition and reason as a basis for belief are clearly subject to a world of subconscious bias.

So, reading personal accounts of, say, NDEs is for me a very powerful tool. Right from the horse's mouth, a thousand narratives singing in harmony, quite a celestial choir.

If you go to the NDERF.org website, check out the 'extraordinary NDEs' section and make yourself some popcorn, sit back and enjoy all the spectacle/drama of Hollywood combined with the profundity of the New Testament dancing with the Bagavata Gita. And they're true!

Tharpa, is the NDE literature alone enough to convince you? Or did you still require some kind of personal experience to open up the possibilities for you?

I suspect that it requires some kind of personal experience to at least make consideration of the evidence possible. I think having a dramatic experience like an NDE makes it very hard to doubt survival, but most people don't need that much of a jumpstart to become open to the possibility.

Most people do have experiences involving psi, but it is easy to explain them away and forget them. But if they make you curious enough to start looking at the literature, that could change your whole outlook.

Maybe it isn't possible to accept any sort of evidence without at least some kind of experience to get the ball rolling?

I find the NDERF stuff ALSO very inspirational and enjoy reading it as well. That said - I think the NDE is probably amongst the weaker evidence(s) for survival - as it is the easiest to relegate to a purely internal event...even if we don't understand the mechanism for "how" it happens just yet.

There are VERY few accounts of OBE's - where there is factual, objective information retrieved that proves true and accurate. Even Robert Monroe's stuff - and some of the other avid OBE'rs is fraught with fantastic fantasy - and I'm pretty sure Monroe never really got a 100% verifiable "hit" when tested by OBE friendly scientists.

The same thing with the excpeptional NDE cases...I've yet to see one that is so clearly demonstrated to be happening "out of the body" that there is no room to argue. (the Pam Reynolds case is really good, but there are some pretty good arguments that it's been embellished a bit - and reconstructing it could explain some things that seem unexplainable)

I guess I'm in the camp that says there is so MUCH we don't yet understand about the human brain, and the experiences it can generate in states we don't yet fully "get", that to think these experiences are PROOF of life after death is more wishful thinking and selective science.

(although I DO believe if the current AWARE studies present lots of proof positive, it's going to be very powerful)

I DO believe that the many other fingers pointing to the same thing are more compelling, much of the medium communication, ADC's witnessed by numerous people at once, experiences like those that Zerdini has recounted here, etc - to me, are MUCH more difficult to explain away.

(As I don't believe ANY understanding of how the brain operates in various states of distress will explain them.....and while possibly NOT as personally transformative, they seem to be much more objectively evidential than interior experiences, no matter how transcendent.)

LOL..Tharpa, great point ! I'm not decrying anyone's experiences but I find the simple out of body experience convincing. Here's why. (the heavenly bit is great, of course, but we can't prove that 'bit' beyond reasonable doubt. However...
There are enough cases on record of accurate veridical observation as to make it almost improbable that the information could have been gained any other way than through a true separation of mind and physical body.
If the good old mind model(as many have pointed out on here) ie the mental confabulation was the explanation, why is what is confabulated always relevant to what is actually going on in the surroundings? Others on here have said this in the past and I think it's a good point. Some of these patients should wake up and be convinced that they've been to the moon or something, if it's just a confabulation based on subconscious promptings(the surgeon might have mentioned what a lovely full moon there was that night for example...not perfect but you get the picture,anyway)

One of Sabom's patients reported seeing a doctor injecting his groin while he was clinically dead and being resuscitated. When Sabom checked it out in the patients notes, he discovered that it wasn't a 'shot', but rather a sampling/drawing of blood to test the gasses etc. Now, if this had been a confabultion, the patient would have said that they were taking some blood from my groin etc...but he didn't. He called as he SAW it and he saw it as a lay-person would.
Now there are just too many of these cases to keep on dismissing them.

Felipe, Hi I just read your post. I note that you say there are very few Nde's where there is factual information that proves right.
That's not correct, though. Sabom had six gold standard cases(very accurate detailed/specific) and more than thirty others that were accurate but not as good as the former six(because the patients had said that they were so taken with the experience that they weren't paying any attention to their surroundings).

The Reynold's case is stunning. It's only because it's been smeared(not trying to start a row, by the way) that some waverers are now not so sure about it.
What about Janet Schwaninger's study.
A physican who actually worked at her(study) hospital witnessed his own resucitation and knew exactly how many times he'd been shocked (seven)Quite impressive in that state, I think.

Oh and bear in mind that Sabom's control group, when asked to confabulate the events of their resuscitation(and they too had been resuscitated)the vast majority made glaring mistakes. Whereas the target group(who claimed to have actually witnessed their own resus.- made none !

I agree, Trev - those cases are very compelling.

However - there are MANY very smart scientists, and people who have researched NDE's and the mind at work in a friendly, favorable way to PSI, who do NOT believe they are evidence of life after death, but who posit all sorts of other ideas that are more reasonable to them.

( I know Dean Radin has been mentioned in this thread via the comments - I'm pretty sure HE doesn't believe in survival of conciousness, but has alternative theories of mind at large, etc)

There are in fact ways to extrapolate the remote viewing experience, Trev - for example - and look at that through the prism of a "mind at large" or brain as a filtering mechanism or reduction valve - and NOT believe that we survive the death of our physical bodies at all.

(and again - there are lots that posited that sort of stuff - from William James to Huxley, etc - and did NOT neccessarily believe that there is a "self" that survives physical death.)

I hope you are right though - and I do find the thought - and the stories - inspirational as well!


Thanks, felipe, good points,
Still I find Psi explanations just as problematic as dualism/survival. I hear what your saying about psychedelics etc...I don't think those experiences fully satisfy/ convince the subjects, do they ?

On top of all the NDE research we have death bed visions as well. And of course from many impressive contributors to this blog, spiritualism, too(which I don't know much about).
There comes a time IMHO when one has to weigh up the evidence and go with it otherwise we just get bogged down forever in the endless possibilties of creative skeptical objections.
I know someone who has had one of these experiences(as we all probably do(NDE's)(Sandy on here for instance.)I've quizzed him until the cows come home about... was it real ?...are you sure you weren't dreaming("don't be stupid, Trev, I was dead")...well, how do you know you were dead? "Trev...I saw myself on the road"
Do you not think it might have been a mind model ....? "No, Trev, I don't, you'll know when you see 'your'-self...." Are you certain ?
"Shut up, for goodness sake, Trev.

Hi Folks

Michael, enjoyable post as always. Like you, if your blog was the only evidence of psi I wouldn't believe it. But still, your blog helps!!

Anyway, I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic, but it seems at least tangentially relevant. I just had a brief discussion over on the Buddhist site Tricycle. http://www.tricycle.com/blog/?p=1697 (at the bottom of the page). It was part of a conversation about long time Buddhist Stephen Batchelor who has "come out" as an atheist. I thought that posting some thoughts on psi might be interesting. I got carried away and came across as too dogmatic. the respondent took me to task, and I tried to respond as best I could.

Anyway, here's the connection with the "wheat and the chaff". Why do we have so much trouble accepting psi? Why do we even have to spend time separating the wheat and the chaff. Why do we, as Marcello Truzzi said, think that psi makes "extraordinary claims" (extraordinary in relation to what?).

Haven't we finally finished with the whole question of scientific evidence now that Richard Wiseman has come out and said that psi has been proven if you hold it to the same level as other areas of science.

I think if we can really get clear about what makes us think psi is extraordinary then the whole field will make a quantum leap forward.

What makes people think psi is extraordinary. The only thing we know, that we call the "world", is forms in the space of awareness. We have no direct experience of boundaries in that awareness, so why should we think that forms "in" one person's awareness are absolutely separate from anothers' awareness?

As for a 'self' that survives physical death, one could make a case that there never was a 'self' in the first place- simply, or not so simply, a sentient pattern of awareness that has no solid core, and changes every minute. How are you the same 'self' as you were as a baby?

This is a Buddhist view of the self and the notion of sunyata, or emptiness. This isn't nihilistic, though, because there is still luminosity. The ultimate nature of reality is emptiness/luminosity. A dream analogy works pretty well.

Focus only on the emptiness, you get nihilism. Focus solely on the luminosity and you get eternalism. If you must err, tho, err on the side of eternalism!

As far as proof is concerned, I'll leave that to the provers. But I was yanked out of my body through the hole at the top of the head once by some negative- or at least very naughty- beings, and that shit was real. Like a tissue out of a hole in a cardboard box, I mean just whipped out and sent flying across the real sky as far as I could tell. Terrifying. So, Sandy, when I read the NDE stuff it may only be considered convincing to me because I have had some personal experience. I'd love to hear yours!

I'm not sure what I would wish for if given the choice- reincarnation makes sense to me in terms of justice. Some people just lead such miserable lives, I cannot accept that's just bad luck. And if they're working through karma and lessons to be learned, that makes total sense to me.

I tend my nature to err towards nihilism, so I'm just going to have to go with survival for the sake of my own sanity- and my own survival. Coz if and when somebody proves something else, let me know and I'll go out and buy me a big 'ol Desert Eagle because I've worked with too many miserable old people for all that suffering to mean nothing, and I aint gettin' any younger.

Hi Tharpa,

Nice comment. I like your thoughtful balancing between nihilism (no self) and eternalism (all Self).

Just to get back to the thought, why do people think psi (rebirth, OBEs, NDEs, etc) are extraordinary.

I had another thought after posting. Does anybody know of any legitimate evidence against any paranormal phenomenon?

I love the example of the person who tries to "replicate" the experiment of creating ice, and after lowering the temperature to 42 degrees, triumphantly declares there's no such thing as ice. From what I've seen, a lot of so called "evidence" against psi is of this type.

Keep in mind the great (??!?!) Donald Rumsfeld's maxim, The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I'm not asking about failure to replicate (absence of evidence). Is there really any scientific evidence - not unwarranted materialistic ideas like 'modern neuroscience' provides evidence that the mind is entirely dependent on the brain - it does no such thing - but actual solid, empirical evidence. I can't imagine what such evidence would look like.

THe question of psi, rebirth, OBEs, etc is not really an empirical problem, it's a philosophic problem. As psychologist Bill Adams once pointed out to me, I could ask him to think of a number from 1 to a million, and guess the correct number 1000 times in a row, and without a theoretical context, I haven't "proved" psi. Or I could tell you the contents of a safe a thousand miles away. All I've done is spoken some words.

As soon as we switch our mental context (like Tharpa's suggestion of thinking of this all as a dream or dream like) everything is a miracle. Right now, cognitive scientists have absolutely no way of explaning qualia - that is, the colors, sounds, and the feel of the world. They may talk about wavelengths and electromagnetic waves and optic or auditory nerves, but that's all abstract concepts. They have no way of even accounting for qualia, which means they have no way of accounting for anything in our experienced universe.

So why is psi considered extraordinary?

Trev - I agree that much of the OTHER evidence for survival (i.e. - shared ADC's, some of the medium communications, some of the better Ian Stevenson style research and most especially experiences like the one's that Zerdini has shared - in toto - seem to point to the fact that we are more than our bodies for sure. I think the NDE's - and OBE anecdotes are very powerful when viewed through that prism - and add supplemental evidence to a growing body of proof.

There are a lot of OBE's that get it ALL wrong - and a fair amount of published material that to me - is suggestive that even some of the better performers, when put to a test - can't identify ANYTHING correctly, even when told to pay attention..:-) (I think Alex Tanous was a well known exception)

My feeling, and I know people here disagree - but if the AWARE study brings forth empirical data, it's going to be hard to refute. But if it DOESN'T.....I think it's going to be a body blow to the notion that the NDE is actually an external event - rather than a decidedly rich and elaborate interior experience, akin to a hallucination we don't yet understand.

BTW - I have trouble with all of the self/no self stuff. I have a self....and self-ishly - I'd like to take it with me where ever I'm going next..:-)


"Tharpa, is the NDE literature alone enough to convince you? Or did you still require some kind of personal experience to open up the possibilities for you?"

Sandy, when I began reading about NDE's in 1991, it was a huge step for me. Until then I had been not just an atheist, but a cocksure, angry one. For example, I remember being on a blind date with an attractive young woman, and having quite a good time until she asked me, "Do you believe in out-of-body experiences?"

Looking back on that occasion, I'll bet that she was looking for an opening to share something deeply meaningful to her—quite possibly an NDE. And (considering the turn my life has taken since then) how I wish I had given her that opportunity! Instead, I was annoyed and said something like, "Out of body? I AM my body. How can I be outside myself!" To me, she was simply acting crazy. Like my mother. And that's a deep, historical pain that I don't want to revisit.

But a few years later, in 1991, my life wasn't working so well. I guess that's why I was willing to re-consider possibilities that I had closed the door on for decades. And NDE's had something in common with the psychotherapy that had been the cornerstone of my life for many years—NDE's were rooted in FEELING. Feeling deeply. That made me perk up my ears a bit.

And when NDE'ers began saying that what they experienced was so powerful, so ecstatic, so extraordinary, so profoundly loving that words simply couldn't describe it, I knew that I too had had an experience like that.

Because 20 years earlier, a college friend had given me some LSD. This was before I had even tried marijuana! I had no idea what to expect, and for twenty years afterwards I had no context, no way of grasping what I did, in fact, experience back on that day.

Until I began reading about the NDE.

I'm saying all this, in part, because I want to explain more clearly why, for me, the notion of "evidence that stands by itself" doesn't make sense. Whenever new information comes my way, I always judge it based on what I've read, heard, and/or experienced up to that moment. My LSD experience allowed me to consider the possibility that NDE's are real. My study of NDE's opened me up to the possibility of psi in general. And so it goes.

MP—I may not always agree with you, but I do love the intelligence, clarity, and passion with which you express yourself on matters that are close to my heart! And for this wonderful forum.


hi,

am i missing something?

"My LSD experience allowed me to consider the possibility that NDE's are real."

Add to that sentence: and in its own way, my experience in Primal Therapy set the stage as well.

Bruce, I totally understand why it seems to take an experience to open people up to the possibility of psi. My husband has so much difficulty with anything remotely to do with psi phenomenon. He has seen move my pk wheel and knows about the testing I had done. He used to avoid looking at me when I did the pk wheel but now sometimes when I think he is watching the game on TV and I'm playing with that wheel, I'll look over and see him watching it move. I don't say anything, because I don't know what to say. I somehow think my experiences are changing him.

I once heard Charles Tart say something along the lines that the evidence for psi suggests the possibility of survival of consciousness, because the sorts of beings who could demonstrate such abilities are the ones likely to be able to survive. I know that psi doesn't prove survival, but I tend to think it does point to the possibility of such a thing.

Survival helps to make sense of why these abilities exist because perhaps we need them after this life is over. Maybe we even evolved to survive, who knows? The stuff I brought back from my NDE don't always work very well or make sense here. But it made a lot of sense to experience things that way when I was dead.

Dean Radin and Julie Beischel give an excellent talk on the evidence for survival that can be downloaded from the IONS site. I thought membership was required to access the mp3, but apparently not:

http://www.shiftinaction.com/discover/audios/dean_radin_and_julie_beischel/survival_of_consciousness

"My husband has so much difficulty with anything remotely to do with psi phenomenon. "

Sandy, I understand your husband. A version of him is permanently installed somewhere in the back of mind. :o)

Sandy, I'll add to that by saying that for years, I used to have running debates on spiritual matters—almost all in my head—with a disbelieving friend, and with Arthur Janov, the 100% atheistic founder of the therapy that was my "home" for so many years. These arguments went on for many years, even though I understood completely, even then, that the real argument was always between me and . . . me.

Sorry, that should read: A version of him is permanently installed somewhere in the back of my mind.

That's OK, Bruce, I figured that's what you meant. I feel badly for putting my husband through such stuff. Although I did tell him that I could see colors early on in our relationship. He was silly enough to propose anyways.

"Although I did tell him that I could see colors early on in our relationship. He was silly enough to propose anyways."

Maybe he just thought to himself: "Hmmm. I wonder why she wants to assure me that she's not colorblind?"

Nah!!! I'm sure he understood you completely but felt you were irresistible despite your little quirks.

The comments to this entry are closed.