IMG_2361
Blog powered by Typepad

« Book review: 30 Years among the Dead | Main | Two cheers for materialism »

Comments

I remember when I saw George Anderson on Unsolved Mysteries doing some readings. He was a strange guy with the way his hand sort of moves back and forth across the tablet he holds. It just sort of wiggles there. I was impressed enough I bought some of the paperback books written about him. I think they were co-written with Paul Perry? After reading those books I was really impressed.

I have had a few little "glimpses of eternity" of my own. Just tiny glimpses that although not enough to write my own book, enough to let me know that there is more to this life than meets the eye. I remember once sitting in a Sunday School class and Reggie Greene, the campus minister, was droning on about something and I had this very brief amazing experience where all of a sudden I was given this knowledge about the purpose of the Church and why it exists. It only lasted a fraction of a second but it was like downloaded into my brain. I think I must have been in like a zoned out state not thinking or listening to anything and it allowed my brain to connect with the collective consciousness or something. While Reggie was going on about something I was somewhere else mentally. I can't explain exactly it but it was "something."

"I am just trying to live in this world, and believing that one day I will see my mother again makes life a little easier."

Art - Isn't this a good argument for wishful thinking? A skeptic would say, "of course Art gravitates toward the supernatural, he wants to see his mother again. Who doesn't?" I'm not trying to be crass. I just don't want to get bogged down in the same "belief" systems that turns some (and i emphasize some, if not few) traditional religious folk into very close minded individuals - almost cult like. And, although I too, believe that there is something greater than materialism in or outside of this world, I can't get over the fact that what I believe can be anything that can get soaked into my brain and for what I choose not to reject.

I greatly admire your opinions and comments Art, in fact, I often look forward to them - but that statement of desire in a "need to believe" (i.e. to see your mother), caught my attention.

FYI, in case anyone was interested CSICOP founder Paul Kurtz has passed away recently. Although I did not agree with his stance on the paranormal he seemed to be a good guy and and was quite the humanist. He certainly was central to the sceptical movement.

"FYI: The intelligent reader of Michael Prescott's blog is instantly impressed by the breadth of his knowledge of the scientific and philosophical discourse in paranormal studies, by the scrupulous fairness of his appraisals, and by the breadth and liberality of his perspectives. Try reading some of his writings. You might advise your rationalwiki friends to do likewise. "

Aye

I stumbled here when searching for more of Nanci Danison's story, found a gracious thoughtful host and community, than you all :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdbrIrFxas0

"I greatly admire your opinions and comments Art, in fact, I often look forward to them - but that statement of desire in a "need to believe" (i.e. to see your mother), caught my attention." - Sleepers |

Better than the alternative. Ever notice how angry and negative a lot of the skeptic/atheist/materialist are? Who wants to go through life like that? No thanks.

Plus there are whole lot of pieces to the puzzle. It's almost fun to see the skeptic-materialists play "whack-a-mole" trying to konk on the head whoever the next person who had an experience is. You'd think they'd get tired but they never seem to.

Step back and see the big picture. My picture-puzzle is framed by quantum physics and the holographic universe theory. I believe the holographic universe theory can encompass all the evidence and make it understandable.

I think we are only allowed to see a glimpse of eternity on purpose. I believe it is set up that way on purpose. Anything else would defeat the emotion that is generated when those we love die and we mourn their death. It's a little lesson in separation to teach our soul what it means and how it feels to be separate, something it can't learn in heaven due to those overwhelming (holographic) feelings of oneness and connectedness.

"I stumbled here when searching for more of Nanci Danison's story, found a gracious thoughtful host and community, than you all :D"

As you may have discovered, we've had some pretty heated discussions here about Nanci Danison. It all began with my praising her book to the skies, only to find, to my surprise, that some of the regulars here have a strong distaste for Nanci and her book. (Though some of that animus may have mellowed.)

What's your impression of her, Talcott? You'll be graded on this. ;o)

I pretty much feel the same way about Nanci. What I would say is that root of the issue with her is her calling her spiritual experience an NDE when it was not. So we end up arguing about a big spiritual experience in terms of NDEs when we could have a more productive and positive discussion about it were we to discuss it in terms of OBEs. Of course, she sets up this problem herself and compounds it by "selling" her experience as "the deepest NDE EVAH!"

Wow! I've just been reading Bernando Kastrup's blog. This man is downright brilliant. He actually succeeds to construct an ontological framework that explains very elegantly any paranormal phenomenon he touches upon.

This amazed me, for it was immediately clear in the first of his blogs I read that his is an immaterialist/Idealist position. I have come to expect that many theorists observing phenomena on that perspective flop sooner rather than later. Bernado, however, is in full control of every move he makes.

The empiricist would have a frustrating time challenging Bernardo. His is just too good a mind: no 'naive Idealist', he. The most the empiricist can do is hurt the foot that attempts to kick his construct over. A story of Boswell about Samuel Johnson I've always liked is this. 'I refute him [Bishop Berkeley] thus!' he said, kicking a stone and sending it flying.

Good as his construct is though, an Idealist paradigm is that and only that. By nature, it absolves itself from a need to prove its truth. The validity of the reasoning the procedure is alone subject to proof. So finally, the paradigm stands, true or not though its component claims may be. And there's the rub: nothing of existential import has been achieved. Idealistic illuminations are, surely, pointless if the claims they make are not falsifiable. (But admittedly, they can have a very appealing intellectual beauty. Bernado's certainly do.)

"I pretty much feel the same way about Nanci. What I would say is that root of the issue with her is her calling her spiritual experience an NDE when it was not."

Matt, I agree that medical facts are significant, but for me, they're not the most important thing. When I think about any mystical experience, regardless of its trigger or cause, I like Grof's term holotropic. It means "moving towards wholeness." How far did the experiencer move towards that state of consciousness in which one knows oneself as All That Is, as the very source of creation?

In that sense, Danison's experience, and Moorjani's, were both very deep. Maybe even deeper than Eben Alexander's (whose book I'm now reading).

But I hate to make a contest of this--each experience is profound in its own way, shining a light on certain aspects of reality, while being less instructive about others.

Speaking of "all that is" I was just thinking this morning as I was sitting out on our deck enjoying the cool fall weather that the life after death stories we have now are not the end. There will be more. Seems like every few months or so a new interesting life after death story comes out. All I have to do is be patient and something else arises to peak my interest and make me take notice. A new "life after death" story for me to read several times and try to understand. I'm thankful for that. It's almost like it's that way on purpose, "glimpses of eternity," that is what we are allowed.

"Seems like every few months or so a new interesting life after death story comes out."

Yes, Art, there have been some great ones recently: Danison, Moorjani, Alexander, and I also really enjoyed Natalie Sudman's articulate and quirky little book.

Bruce,

||Matt, I agree that medical facts are significant, but for me, they're not the most important thing.||

I think they're very important for distinguishing NDEs from other types of experiences.

||When I think about any mystical experience, regardless of its trigger or cause, I like Grof's term holotropic. It means "moving towards wholeness." How far did the experiencer move towards that state of consciousness in which one knows oneself as All That Is, as the very source of creation?||

I agree yet disagree. This is indeed the most important thing yet, in a way, the least interesting--since we all kinda know it anyway. We look to NDEs to understand the *mechanics of death* because, darnit, we all have to die. How do we handle that? Knowing that All Is One helps yet doesn't help much.

||In that sense, Danison's experience, and Moorjani's, were both very deep. Maybe even deeper than Eben Alexander's (whose book I'm now reading).||

The problem I have with Danison's is that I think she relays false mechanics. Spirit inhabiting "cunning" (her word) animal bodies and all that. This seems more like a Bruce Moen OBE with content of questionable validity than an NDE that dovetails nicely with other NDEs.

||But I hate to make a contest of this--each experience is profound in its own way, shining a light on certain aspects of reality, while being less instructive about others.||

Right. To me it's not even really how good individual NDEs are. It's about how they come together to form a Big Picture. Danison's *contradicts* a lot of other NDEs, and her response is to say, Well, it was deeper and better. This is problematic.

Bruce,

A test?

O.o

I thought she had a couple of unigue twists to the NDE fabric. I haven't read her books yet so I still remain relatively ignorant of her tale.

;)

I checked out Bernardo's blog. He's not as interesting as Bruce.

I did subscribe to his page, however.

"I checked out Bernardo's blog. He's not as interesting as Bruce."

Thanks, Matt! :o)

Bernardo's fun to follow because he speaks the language of science so well. He always seems to be able to respond to the trickiest skeptical arguments clearly and insightfully. Read, for example, his response on Skeptiko to the question "Why don't hydrocephalus victims have expanded consciousness?"

It's a good question, isn't it? If near-death disables brains, thus allowing the spiritual realm to filter in, why don't other forms of mental deficiency or disability do the same?

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptiko-podcast/4359-why-dont-hydrocephalus-victims-have-expanded-consciousness.html

At the same time, Bernardo is a practicing mystic. I just finished re-reading the first part of his book Dreamed Up Reality. In it, he describes four "experiments" in altered consciousness (not telling us exactly how he reached those states).

I love that part of the book, because his experiences remind me so much of my own, as well as echoing those of other mystics, including . . . . Nanci Danison.

Which takes me to your comments about Ms. D. I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree about her, because we keep going around in circles about whether or not her account is a radical departure from what other NDErs have to say. I'm certain it's not, you're certain it is.

Can't help but respond to this, though:

"Spirit inhabiting "cunning" (her word) animal bodies and all that."

This seems to me like an example of pouncing on something out of context. Here's a quote I marked in my Kindle version: "The body is a loving animal that consented to blend with me so I could take human form."

Cunning, of course, is not incompatible with loving, but I'll bet if you re-read her, you'll see that "cunning" is hardly a fair one-word encapsulation of her perspective on the body.

I was thinking about Danison as I read your recent comment in another thread about the various categories of consciousness. It reminded me, in some ways, about one of her observations. This passage includes the sort of specific and evocative detail that I find so appealing in her writing:

"Life in the Light thrilled me with the ability to literally hold multiple simultaneous levels of perspective on my own self-awareness. There is nothing like it in human experience. I could hold a thought, observe myself intentionally generating that thought, be aware of myself as both thinker and observer, and marvel at my own multiple awareness levels--all instantaneously and simultaneously. There were many more awareness levels as well. Each layer or level felt like a complete consciousness unto itself. It seemed I could expand my perspective ever further outward, while still seeing and feeling each previous level of consciousness like layers of a wedding cake."

Which reminds me, tellingly, of passages from Bernardo and Natalie Sudman.

Here's another:

"Soon I understood that by telepathically sharing my life memories with them, my friends could *actually live my life and experience it* in much the same way I had. By this I mean they could share in my life as an onlooker or participant, as they chose. They could watch Nanci's life like a movie in a screen in their minds, or live within my memories as a participant in the events as they transpired."

That's the sort of detail we rarely get in NDE accounts.

Looks like you've gotten me started. :o)

"A test? . . . I thought she had a couple of unique twists to the NDE fabric."

That she does. You pass. I'm easy. :o)

I was very keen to have Eben Alexander shed light on what consciousness is. I hope he will say more on that. But two things he did say are quite riveting:

'There is nothing you can do wrong' (p.41).

'... whatever our struggles and sufferings in the present world are, they can't truly touch the larger, eternal beings we in truth are' (p.158).

Do these statements entail the idea that the consciousness is not an agent of our wrongdoings on earth? If it does, then the consciousness would begin to look very like Jung's psyche: i.e., not an instigator of behaviour, and not familiar to us (we have to make a tremendous conscious effort to explore it), but the core self nonetheless. But more immediately important for me for is this:

The view is abroad in the literature that the consciousnesses of drug addicts, etc. have to be cured when they reach the ethereal plane, and that the spirit of the human criminal keeps the company of his own kind there, at least for a time. That clearly assumes that earth life can damage the consciousness. There is not the slightest suggestion of this sort of thing in Alexander's book. Does anyone here have a take on this? Please Bruce ... :)

We do have a task to square up the Oneness aspect of NDE accounts with channeled communications regarding an afterlife transitional area where we assimilate our previous life before slowly awakening to Oneness (or varying degree of. My take is as follows:

NDEs, with their experiences of Oneness (or varying degrees of) may not be indicative of the average individual's typical experience immediately following death.

These powerful NDE experience may in fact serve the purpose of awakening the individual to greater realities, and of getting the message out to the wider public consciousness, which NDE reports, of course, serve to do.

My intuition on this, and it is just intuition I accept, is that these are bursts of Oneness, but they are temporary in nature.

There may still come a point after this where the individual has to return to a more human-like state for the purpose of fully assimilating their previous earth experience, and also for assimilating all their other lives; they then return to this Oneness state again once this has been achieved.

I say intuition only, but actually, I also see this as being reflected in the accounts of channeled sources compared to NDEs. In order for them to square with each other, I think the above must be true to, to some extent.

Of course, it may vary widely depending on the individual. Perhaps some people need little to no integration/adjustment time, while others require more, so we should perhaps be wary of trying to build up a single structure for the death to afterlife process - the differences between individuals may be huge.

Bear in mind it's possible to achieve limited states of Oneness while still in the physical, and some of these experiences can be profound, so the idea of an NDE being a temporary state of Oneness, before returning (in some cases at least) to something more familiar in some kind of afterlife area, is not that far fetched.

The Neo-Platonist philosopher Plotinus achieved a state of Oneness only two or three times in his life, but the experiences were clearly profound for him, and perhaps as profound as any NDE state.

Douglas, I think you have it pretty right there.

"Knowing that All Is One helps yet doesn't help much." - Matt

Yes it does. It tells us what the physics of the other side will be like. If you understood how a hologram works and a holographic piece of film you'd understand what it's going to be like in Heaven. The "all is one" thing tells me that the other side is going to be like a holographic piece of film. Read the online essay about The Universe as a Hologram (written by I suspect Michael Talbot) if you care to know more.

http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

"Oneness" is a property of the physics of the other side. Just like an apple falling from a tree here is a property of gravity. It permeates the entire "other side" or dimension.

This side is a holographic projection and the other side is the original film that our universe is a projection from.

And no there doesn't need to be an original place or object that the original film was made from. No original object need ever have existed. It can all be pure code, bits of information, that were "written" much as computer code is written.

What this means is that anything that exists here most likely exists "there" including bees, wasps, worms, flies, and mosquitoes. Whatever you focus your attenion on, whatever you think of, that is what you will experience or "see." That is what near death experiences tell me. "I thought of a mountain that I had seen as a child and there it was!" or Randy Gehling's description where he said "all of a sudden I knew what it was like to be a man, woman, girl, boy, etc."

Hi Art,

I get the idea of the theory, and I think it is probably closer to the reality than a lot of other theories, but as I said, I don't think the experience of oneness and instant cosmic consciousness is actually typical, nor that there is some kind of automatic switchover from individual consciousness to cosmic consciousness instantly on crossing over.

I think the NDE reports we have are giving this impression, but I think that this is probably not typical.

I agree that everyone moves into that perspective after a period of transition, but the transitional period is essential to properly assimilate in full our previous life experience (and to integrate them fully into our being along with other lives), certainly from what I can gather from channeled sources.

I agree that we can experience deep 'oneness' experiences in NDE states and in other altered states, but I think these modes are temporary while still in, or close to, the physical world.

"Do these statements entail the idea that the consciousness is not an agent of our wrongdoings on earth?"

Whether there even is such a thing as wrongdoing, depends on the level of reality from which you're answering that question. (A point that Michael often likes to make.)

If you live here on Earth, right and wrong seem to be valid categories. If you're flying on a butterfly's wing in the OBE state, the notion of doing "wrong" makes no sense.

"The view is abroad in the literature that the consciousnesses of drug addicts, etc. have to be cured when they reach the ethereal plane, and that the spirit of the human criminal keeps the company of his own kind there, at least for a time."

It's impossible for us here on earth to nail down matters like that, because the language we use assumes that time is always real and definitive, and therefore, that something is either true or false.

But both of these exist NOW: you in your healed state, and you in your still-sleeping state.

We are instantly healed, and we are healed in steps. They're both true.

Because all of our experiences, all of our states of development, exist simultaneously!

From the perspective of Source, there is no afterlife. Because there is no after. There is only now.

Maybe my perspective seems contradictory and less than helpful. But have you noticed that it's impossible to find satisfying answers to questions like these that are NOT contradictory in one way or another?

The contradictions disappear when we're in a different state of consciousness, one that is not anchored in time.

Douglas, I like what you're saying. Your answer would have been mine a year ago. But now I think it doesn't go far enough in accounting for the ultimate simultaneity of all events and states.

Here's a Zen axiom, paraphrased:

The Tao that can be expressed in words is not the true Tao.

I think that's accurate for any of our attempts to answer the sort of questions we're asking here.

Of course, it's still fun to try.

Apropos to my comments on time, I just found this passage from Nanci Danison pasted into a Skeptiko discussion:

"Early on in my transition in the Light, I gained the insight that time is a fiction of human design. More importantly, I realized that we could never learn the truth about time while trapped in physical bodies. This is because the body, by its physical nature, is incapable of surpassing time conventions in order to study the universe from a broader perspective. In other words, one must go out of body in order to observe that time is irrelevant. The human view convinces the most brilliant scientists in all of history that time does indeed exist and applies to the universe at large. These learned, insightful, but ultimately erroneous scholars may devise eloquent scientific models for the development of the universe based upon human time conventions, but they are still limited to human perspective. Scientists will never truly understand that time does not exist as a universal constant, unless and until they leave their bodies . . . "

(Backwards, 2007, p. 85-86.)

Bruce, Art, cc Douglas,

I'm also not sold as "oneness" being the Ultimate, and I think it is not.

I tried to google it but failed, but I read a bit of Buddhist scripture in which the Buddha's disciples were asking if the sage, upon attaining Nirvana, was like a drop of water in the ocean or (I forget the other part--maybe *not* like a drop of water in the ocean). And the Buddha replied that the sage is neither like such a drop not unlike such a drop.

Typical Buddhism. Gotta transcend everything, including Oneness. But I think that's on target. There is also the concept of Advaita, or non-duality. That which exists in opposition to nothing, neither tall nor short, one nor many, and so on. I had a kind of satori flash driving my car one day in which I "saw" advaita (I had been thinking about it a bunch), and it kinda blew me away.

Even Art emphasizes needing to come "here" to experience the separation so that we can really *appreciate* the Oneness once we get back "there." Wouldn't it seem preferable to transcend this entire need (= wheel of samsara?) instead of jonesing on fulfilling it?

Bruce,

I was going to quote the same thing. That's the first two lines of the Dao De Jing. Cheers!

Thank you, Douglas, Art and Bruce, for this superb discussion. Plenty of food for long thought, of course, but I gather with considerable relief (I hope correctly) that no punishment concept associates with the afterlife, on channelled evidence.

Bruce, I have attached myself to this remark of yours like a leech: 'We are instantly healed, and we are healed in steps. They're both true. Because all of our experiences, all of our states of development, exist simultaneously!'

Ugh, I just hate Danison's writing, her tone, etc. Oil and water, I guess.

Time is not a "fiction," it's not of "human design," and it's not a "convention." It's a real aspect of our physical universe. She makes it sound as though we could just be enlightened out of having to deal with it. No more so than gravity.

Ok, totally off topic, but had to share! We all know the AWARE study is out in a few months, and some are already hinting that there's not much in the way of hits.

However, a post in the comments section of the Eben Alexander article on Paranormalia blog details the following recent NDE recorded at the nderf website. It may be relating to a hit in the AWARE study:

---
The AWARE study was mentioned above. On that note, look at what I came across recently on the nderf.org site:Christopher M NDE. 10/16/12 . …the closet was a cabinet (a wardrobe) by the window. It stood away from the wall and was maybe six feet tall. With two doors in the font and a drawer in the bottom. As she was helping me into my shorts I remembered that someone had left an L. E. D. sign on top. I could tell it shocked her when I told her about it. She ask. “What did it say?” I explained it was not turned on so it was dark. Then she helped me back into bed and said she would be right back. She returned with a doctor that questioned me about the sign. The sign was twenty four inches long by four inches wide. It had a dark color (black or gray) plastic face with red L.E.D’s. It was not turned on so it had no message. The doctor stood on a chair and lifted the sign up so I could see it. Then explained that it had been left in the room to help with a study for Out Of Body Experiences.
NDE due to auto accident.

"Time is not a "fiction,"

Not as we see it here on earth. But from the standpoint of Source it IS a fiction, as are you and I.

People, planets, and time--all fruits of the imagination within Source's grand dream. And that's the perspective Danison is talking about.

At the same time, you're right in this sense: there's nothing more REAL than that dream, that "fiction".

Yes, but you put it better than Nanci, Bruci!

Thanks, Matti. I guess that just proves I'm even more backwards than she is. :o)

(For those of you who don't know, "Backwards" is the name of Danison's book.)

Oh Bruce, we love you frontwards and backwards and... Wait, that doesn't sound quite right!

"Even Art emphasizes needing to come "here" to experience the separation so that we can really *appreciate* the Oneness once we get back "there." - Matt
----------------------

No, I never said that. That is not the reason for experiencing separation here.

We experience separation here in this life so we'll know and understand what it means and how it feels to be separate, something that can't be learned on the other side (heaven) due those overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness which so many near death experiencers comment on.

In a holographic piece of film each piece contains the whole and everything interpenetrates everything. Everything is infinitely interconnected to everything else.

I purport that this side where we are at now is a holographic projection and the other side, the place we call heaven, is the original holographic film that our universe is a projection from. That is why the physics of Heaven will be very different from the physics here.

This is the place of separation and the other side (heaven) is the place of oneness and connectedness. We here in the physical universe can't begin to comprehend or understand the oneness and connectedness in heaven.

I think of "time" on the other side like having all of the history of the Universe in DVD's and on the other side you can play them in any order, pause, or reverse, or stop, or hit replay, or take one out and put another one in.

It's like you're in some kind of eternal existence where everything, past, present, and future exist like a smorgasbord and you can go anywhere and experience anything you want to simply by focusing your attention on it.

In this life there is only one time line, forward, no instant replay, no reverse, no pause, no fast forward. Just plain old "play" and you are stuck living your life till the end of the DVD.

Like actors in a movie, playing our parts. Perhaps the education of the soul is too important to leave it up to chance? The soul's lessons are embedded in our everyday lives and it is holistically imprinted with what it needs to learn regardless of who we are, or where we live, or what we believe?

When we get to heaven we have a big cast party at the end to celebrate graduation day!

"Wait, that doesn't sound quite right!"

Yes, it's that problem with language again. :o)

Art,

Me: ||Even Art emphasizes needing to come "here" to experience the separation so that we can really *appreciate* the Oneness once we get back "there."||

You: ||We experience separation here in this life so we'll know and understand what it means and how it feels to be separate, something that can't be learned on the other side (heaven) due those overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness which so many near death experiencers comment on.||

OK, how are these different? We can't learn it there; we can learn it here. We learn it here for what reason? Isn't it to appreciate "Over There" in a way we could not without our education here?

"OK, how are these different? We can't learn it there; we can learn it here. We learn it here for what reason? Isn't it to appreciate "Over There" in a way we could not without our education here?" - Matt
------------------

No, two different things. It's not about appreciation, it's about becoming a separate unique individual. It's about learning what it means and how it feels to be separate.

Before you were born you were part of your mother and your father - you didn't exist separate and apart from them. The gametes, sex cells existed inside your mother and father but they weren't separate. It's sort of like a metaphor for the what we were before we live a life here.

We come here to learn what it means to be separate. Okay, here's another analogy. Do you know Star Trek: The Next Generation and the Borg episodes? In the Borg collective you don't exist separately, no mind of your own. You are only a Borg drone. In a few of the Star Trek Episodes they "rescued" Borg Drones and "unassimilated" them. They were able to teach the Borg Drones what it meant to be their own person, what it felt like to be separate.

It all has to do with that holographic thing (by the way the holographic universe theory was mentioned on The Big Bang Theory on today's episode. Leonard explained it to Penney), that feeling of oneness and connectedness in heaven. We here in the physical universe just can't begin to comprehend what feeling of oneness and connectedness in heaven feels like.

Interesting NDE, Douglas. I guess time will tell if it's part of the study or (possibly) just a made-up story. (I don't want to sound cynical, but AFAIK the NDERF accounts are not typically authenticated.)

Hey, here's something for both Art and information-universe fans. Tonight's episode of The Big Bang Theory included a scene in which a character explains that, according to string theory, the universe could be a vast hologram, while all that really exists is information. His girlfriend is so turned on by the idea that she insists on having sex with him then and there. Now that's the power of ideas, people!

As it turns out, the NDE excerpted above (involving the LED sign) apparently took place in 1996, so it can't have been part of the AWARE study. I wonder if it was ever documented or verified.

ah well. I wonder what study it was from. It may have been some kind of student 'in-house' study, in which case we may never find out, but it may be possible to look for case studies involving LEDs as markers.

LOL! I watched The Big Bang Theory last night. It's one of my favorite shows and I rarely miss it. I was elated that Leonard mentioned the holographic universe theory and Penny got turned on by it. Leonard was projecting holograms up in the air. Pretty cool!

At the Museum of Science and Industry in Oak Ridge, TN there is actually a holographic projector that projects this ball out into space. When you try and grab the ball your hand goes right through it. It reminds me so much of descriptions I've read in NDE's where they said they tried to touch someone and their hand passed right through the person.

I taught 9th grade Physical Science for a year and half at Union County High School. There was actually a chapter in our little textbook about holograms. I actually learned quite a bit from that text because the description was so simple. It explained in simple words how a hologram is made and projected and about interference patterns and all that.

Anyway I thought last night's Big Bang Theory was really cool! I was wondering who that I knew was also watching it.

Just for the record the reason I'm so hot about the holographic universe theory is both physicists and near death experiencers tell me that our universe is a hologram.

They use different language but they are both saying essentially the same thing. I keep finding little things to reinforce that idea. I was blown away back in January 2010 when I read online in New Scientist magazine the article about Craig Hogan. When Hogan made the comment about blurriness or fuzziness in a holographic projection it reminded me of the statement in many NDEs where they said that the other side seems even more real "crisp" than this side. It parallels what Hogan said about holographic projections. NDE'ers say things like "it was realer than real" or "even more real than this side."

And of course the Life Review is a holographic experience par excellence. Seeing your whole life, all at once, feeling like you are there, hearing the thoughts and feeling the feelings of the people you interacted with, so much so that you feel like you are them?

It is all congruent with the overall oneness and connectedness theme. And so is 360 degree vision, telepathy, being everywhere in the universe at once, feeling like you are the universe, having all knowledge, etc.

So I have a high degree of confidence in the holographic universe theory and it is the closest metaphor we have to what may be going on with our universe. The place we call Heaven may simply be the film that our universe is a projection from? And if so, that means the "physics" of heaven may be the physics one might expect if one were living on the original film instead of the projection from that film.

I would like to see a real ghost hunter show on TV not a sensationalized ones as you see now. Someone like Barry Taff of Loyd Aurebach (both are self proclaimed parapsycholgist) to go in and use the scientific method WITH THE LIGHTS ON to come up with explanations wether they are Paranormal or natural...maybe throw in a professional magician as well just to keep them honest about deception. The ghost investigation shows now prove nothing and are strictly entertainment. I don't think this would ever happen though because this kind of ghost hunting isn't "sexy" for commercial reasons and would be boring to the average viewer but it would be interesting to those of us who truly want to learn more about what is going on in these situations.

Art, Plato taught that there is a perfect replica of everything on earth somewhere else - presumably in the afterlife or in a different dimension. C.S. Lewis implied similar. At least for me, it makes the idea of a holographic universe easier to understand - and hopefully, they were both on to something.

A perfect replica of Jimmy Savile?
Kind of destroys the idea of perfection.

I still don't get why it's like a hologram. That's a metaphor at best and I don't think a very apt one.

In a similar instance, I looked at Bernardo's blog based on Sophie's recommendation (you have influenced me!), and he's talking about the Universe being like a fractal. He points out "as above, so below," and the concept of "correspondences" that's been around quite awhile. Problem is... the Universe really isn't like a fractal! And that old stuff is better than the add-on he's trying to do.

Similarly, saying "all things are highly connected in the Universe, and even more so (infinitely more so, etc.) in the Afterlife" seems to cover it. The specific characteristics of a hologram that would make the metaphor really "pop" don't seem to apply. If anything, it's mildly misinformative, I think.

"Art, Plato taught that there is a perfect replica of everything on earth somewhere else - presumably in the afterlife or in a different dimension. C.S. Lewis implied similar." Kathleen
-------------------

Ah yes, the cave metaphor. I've read about it several times in some of my "life after death" NDE books.

I'm not saying I believe there is some giant holographic projector up there somewhere projecting our whole Universe. It's something else, something beyond our comprehension, but the similarities are amazing whatever it is.

Something really amazing is going on, I'm pretty sure of that. Too many coincidences for it to all just be chance. There are some things I have a difficult time explaining - like guinea worms. Nasty creatures that cause unbelievable suffering in sub-Saharan Africa. Perhaps they are encoding bits of information about the body but as to whether they exist on the other side? I don't know.

One interesting thing the holographic universe theory does is help explain why the Creator allows suffering to happen here on Earth. The answer is that everything that happens here isn't really happening. It's all an illusion, like a dream sort of. We believe everything here is real but after we cross over we'll look back on this life like it was some kind dream and that it went by in the blink of an eye.

Everything that happens here are just lessons to teach the soul about time and space, separation, and what it was like to live inside a body in a 3 dimensional + 1 time Universe.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

The comments to this entry are closed.