School project

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

 

Hi ___,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

[JD]

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

[postgygaxian]

It is hard to write concisely.

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

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

[Cyrus]

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

Then I started reading about NDEs....

[juan]

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

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

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

[Michael Duggan]

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

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

[j9]

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

[Juan]

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

[Michael Duggan]

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

[Kathleen]

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

[Matt Rouge]

Michael,

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

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

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

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

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

But, as I said, nitpicks.

Cheers,

Matt

[Sbu]

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

[Michael Duggan]

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

[Juan]

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

[Ben]

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

[sbu]

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

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

[Michael Prescott]

"even a hardened sceptic wouldn't take offence"

Wanna bet?

;-)

[Hjortron]

Michael,

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

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

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

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

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

[Matt Rouge]

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

Matt

[Art]

In regards to suicide and why it is inadvisable:

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

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

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

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

[Michael Prescott]

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

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

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

[Matt Rouge]

Michael,

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

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

Cheers,

Matt

[Juan]

Sbu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Art

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

[Matt Rouge]

Art,

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

Cheers,

Matt

[Michael Prescott]

Very good points, Juan.

[Bruce Siegel]

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

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

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

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

[Art]

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

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

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

[Hjortron]

Michael,

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

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

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

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

[Paul]

Juan

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

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

[Michael Prescott]

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

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

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

[Hjortron]

Michael,

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

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

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

[Art]

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

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

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

[Michael Prescott]

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

How did you achieve this state of absolute conviction?

[Juan]

Art

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

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

Paul

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

[Paul]

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

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

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

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

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

[Art]

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

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

[Juan]

Art

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

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

[Michael Prescott]

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

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

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

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

And some people do talk of being sent to hell.

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

[Bruce Siegel]

Juan said:

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

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

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

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

Art said:

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

Can't the same question be asked of you?

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

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

[sbu]

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

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

[Bruce Siegel]

"Memories are stored in the brain."

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

Reminds me of this quote from Stan Grof:

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

[Paul]

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

[sbu]

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

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

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

[Paul]

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

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

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

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

[Bruce Siegel]

"Beliefs are something I exercise in Church."

That's merely another belief. :o)

[Bruce Siegel]

"Beliefs are something I exercise in Church."

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

Do you pray?

[Art]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Art]

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

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

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

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

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

[Bruce Siegel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bruce Siegel]

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

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

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

[Juan]

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