Thoughts, and why they're overrated

One of the most useful books I've read is a little self-help manual called You Can Be Happy Matter What, by Richard Carlson. The book was written early in Carlson's career, before he became famous for a series of bestsellers beginning with Don't Sweat the Small Stuff. The later books never appealed to me all that much, but You Can Be Happy … remains one of my favorites.

Carlson's central insight is that you are not your thoughts. His teaching is both simple and profound. He suggests that most of us have the wrong relationship to our own thinking, and that this misconstrued relationship is responsible for most of our angst, depression, worry, and unhappiness in general.

What is this relationship? It is that we think our thoughts are important, when most of the time they are not. They are just thoughts. Thoughts come and go, and it is up to us whether to grant them any importance by focusing on them, examining them, and pursuing them further, or instead to simply let them go.

Suppose you are having a perfectly ordinary day when, for no obvious reason, a thought pops into your head: I really screwed up on that blind date. Maybe the blind date happened yesterday or maybe it happened ten years ago; it doesn't matter. The usual – but wrong – response to this thought is to drill down into it. Yeah, I just can't handle blind dates. Maybe that's why I'm so bad at relationships. I just turn people off. Face it, I'm going to be alone forever.

At this point, you've turned a perfectly nice day into an exercise in self-accusation leading inevitably to a bad frame of mind – probably either anger at yourself, anger at the whole world, or depression. Whatever you were doing a minute earlier seems pointless now, and whatever you had planned to do in the next hour suddenly doesn't seem worth doing anymore. You lie down on the couch, feeling low, and naturally you continue to explore the same thoughts and memories that have brought you down, thus spiraling lower and lower.

This is how most of us behave, at least a good part of the time. We grant our thoughts too much power. We think that there's something significant about them, and that when we take notice of a thought, it must require our immediate attention. We also tend to think that analyzing a problem, worrying at it the way a dog worries at a bone, circling around it to see it from every possible vantage point, will help us to find a solution. It doesn't occur to us that we've spent countless hours analyzing this or similar problems in that way, and all it's ever gotten us is frustration and misery.

So what is the right way to react to the initial thought about the blind date gone awry? Actually, the best way is not to react to it at all. Nor is it to instantly suppress the thought, as if guiltily shoving it into a mental drawer where it can't be seen. That's only another way of giving the thought power – making it so powerful that it must be hidden away like some kind of occult talisman.

The best way is to say yourself, I don't know why I thought about that. It's not worth thinking about now. Or some words to that effect. Then just dismiss the thought and go on about your business.

Though it may be hard to believe, this really works. The subconscious is extremely suggestible, and if you tell it that a certain idea is not important or interesting and certainly not worth bringing up, then the subconscious is much less likely to bring it up again. And the more you reinforce this policy, the less likely it is that the thought will even occur to you. Your subconscious can be trained to stop bringing you things you don't want, much like dog that can be trained to stop bringing you scraps from the garbage can.

Now you might say, What if I would actually benefit from taking a good hard look at my mistakes on the blind date? How else am I going to learn? And that's a valid point. But you're not going to learn anything by an exercise in recrimination and self-abasement. You'd be better off approaching the subject neutrally, when you're in the mood to tackle it without being too hard on yourself. And you're unlikely to get much benefit out of repeating this exercise countless times. Learn what you can from your mistakes, and then close the book on that subject and move on. If your subconscious keeps nudging you to return to this topic after you've gotten what you can out of it, then simply ignore the nudges.

Carlson tells us that nearly all of our emotional and interpersonal difficulties come from granting our thoughts a power they don't deserve. He calls the spiraling nosedive of negative thinking a "thought attack," and observes that these attacks are best handled by nipping them in the bud. Take note of the first negative thought, acknowledge it (don't try to hide it or suppress it), and then simply decide not to take it seriously right now. You can even schedule a time later in the day when you might be willing to take it seriously. Most likely, when that time arrives, you won't even remember it. If you do remember it, you'll probably be sufficiently detached to be able to look at it more objectively and usefully.

From my own experience, I can say that this is a highly effective technique. It's also easy to forget. You can quickly lapse back into old habits. The imagined power of your own thoughts can exert a seductive hold on your ego, a hold difficult to break. But it can be done. It takes a kind of mindfulness, a willingness to step back and look at the thought before committing to it – I mean before committing to even taking it seriously or thinking about it further. Most of the time, once you've taken a step back, you'll find the thought is not worth your time, and you'll dismiss it as effortlessly as you would brush a mosquito off your arm.

Incidentally, this is one of the objections I have to the New Age mantra "thoughts are things." I think this gives thoughts entirely too much reality and importance. It also encourages us to suppress (or repress) our thoughts, by investing them with a fearful power that makes them dangerous to look upon. The opposite is closer to the truth: "thoughts are nothing."

There are limitations to Carlson's method. Though he insists that our happiness is entirely a matter of our own interpretation and that outside circumstances have nothing to do with it, I think some outside circumstances are so dire that no amount of mindfulness, short of the otherworldly detachment of a Zen master, could make them bearable. If you're a prisoner in a concentration camp or the captive of a serial killer, your happiness is really not in your own control. But most of us, thankfully, are not likely to find ourselves in those circumstances. For the ordinary ups and downs of everyday life, the frictions and frustrations, the arguments and disappointments, Carlson's approach works extraordinarily well.

It also has a certain relevance to the whole question of the nature of consciousness. If we are not our thoughts, then what are we? Evidently we are the mind that looks at our thoughts and either investigates them or shoos them away. Which means we are something like "the witness" who habitually stands back from our thoughts and actions, observing and sometimes judging in an impersonal way.

Perhaps it is the witness who is fully real and accounts for the continuity of consciousness that persists across many changes of mind – changes of opinion, changes of knowledge, changes of mood, changes of psychological maturity, etc. When we regard ourselves as essentially the same person we were at the age of six, maybe what we are acknowledging is the persistence of the witness, the observer who is outside the ego with its changeable nature, its endless conflicts, its Sturm und Drang. We are the eye of the storm, and the I in the storm.

And when we get caught up in petty quarrels, ego-based rivalries, and counterproductive obsessions, we're forgetting our essential nature as the witness and becoming ensnared in a briar patch of thoughts that ultimately have no reality at all. We're like a spider that gets stuck in its own web.

At this point we've gotten a little bit away from Richard Carlson's book, so let me circle back to it by saying that my summary of his views is necessarily incomplete and, in itself, probably not very helpful. If it interests you, I suggest reading the whole thing. It's not a long or difficult read, and you just may find it helpful. I know I have.

Comments

[Juan]

"More most importantly, how can we rule out possible natural explanations? The information seems to be lacking."

There casuistry of apparitions that provided information unknown to the witnesses, who were seen by several witnesses at the same time, and so on.

"But I fail to see how alleged sightings of 'apparitions of deceased' from the vaults of the SPR are evidence for life after death, even those in the SPR who recorded such sightings (Edmund Gurney, Frank Podmore and other scholars) attributed such sightings to hallucinations or 'telepathic' hallucinations. This is not evidence for the survival of a soul after death."

Some apparitions are evidence of an afterlife, if they have the aspect of certain deceased, provide new information to the witness, etc.

"Whilst you have honest intentions Juan, I do not believe you ever choose to look at any of the skeptical literature on this subject... the problem here is you are only getting one side of the story."

We've had this conversation. You're wrong. I have read both sides of the story. You act as a sniper / troll, suddenly throw a demurrer, then you will be disproved and not return until next time ...

[Bill]

"Quantum physics is slowly getting there and may provide means to understand consciousness"

No, I have no reason to believe this. Quantum physics has nothing to do with consciousness.

Victor Stenger summed it up best for me:

"No compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations."

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery

We live in a cold material universe, and when we are dead we are dead just like all the other organisms that die in nature every second every minute. Living a life to die. The only meaning to this life is the meaning we invent.

There is no evidence the universe is conscious or operated by any loving God/s. Even Michael on this very blog has written some statements about how nature is "red in tooth and claw" (see his post When bad things happen to good universes).

I know there are a lot of new-age types who post on this blog, and often talk about universal love or light and God. But to me it is a load of nonsense. We live in a very depraved society. Every nation, every empire since the beginning of early man has committed the same crimes or destroyed the planet in some way.

The non-dual teachings of an "endless void" make a lot of sense to me. If we want to eliminate suffering we must eliminate thoughts and learn to become present with life but this is almost impossible because the brain is the mind, and the mind is easily bogged down with thoughts. The way I see it we are just an endless dance of atoms in the void. Many of the eastern religions are actually compatible with materialism (though they don't see it).

All venues to me seem to lead to some form of nihilism. There is only pain in this world. I always wanted to believe in an afterlife to eliminate my suffering but now I am beginning to just want to embrace death because I know it is a permanent cure. I think an afterlife in another dimension free of suffering or this limited physical form would be fantastic but I have not come across any evidence it exists. Take care.

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Good luck Bill with your efforts. You have a long way to go if you have only written 3,000 words. I think it is commendable that you have the chutzpa to tackle this writing exercise.

You may find that you are up against some heavy weights in the people that you listed. I have never thought that any of the people you named tried to defend anything. Take Prof. Stephen Braude for example. In his book “Immortal Remains” he made a strong attempt to present information about possible survival but did not defend that survival exists. I have never thought that our host, Michael Prescott tries to defend anything (Well, maybe that Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare.) He just tries to present as much information on the subject as he thinks is interesting and might provoke a conversation. And Dr. Walter Franklin Prince never tried to defend Patience Worth in his book, “The Case of Patience Worth”. Most of these people did try though to present information or what they thought was evidence related to the occurrence of some unusual phenomena.

This is not a battle Bill, it's just an investigation. - AOD

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

SPatel,
It’s interesting to hear you say that you have a “distaste” for religion. I don’t know that I have really thought about religion in any depth to have a liking or a distaste for it. Perhaps I think that ‘religion’ had and continues to have its place in the grand drama that is life on planet earth. I just get up above it all and look back seeing that everything has meaning in the play, including religious thought, dogma, myth, ritual, ceremony, conquest and defeat and that religion has provided , perhaps the major motivating force throughout the history of man reaching far back beyond Christianity and other current belief systems.

Who can deny that religious belief has kept the action in the play going in bloody glory and despair. - AOD

[SPatel]

Thoughts can't be explained by materialism because they are determinate - a thought about Paris is intrinsically about that city in France.

Material things only have derived "aboutness", they are only about what we project on to their substance/pattern. And thus a bit of matter can be about anything at all.

There's more to it than that, which requires going into the philosophical concept of Intentionality, but at it's base I think the problem for materialists - fixing the meaning of a piece of matter - is clear?

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Lyn x

You talk of people having the utmost belief that science knows it all. Well, I used to believe that! For over 50 years I have accepted the many references to the theories of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and the survival of the fittest. I had never read his two most quoted works "Origin of Species" and "Descent of Man", the 'bibles' of scientific theory supporting a belief in evolution and a refutation of special creation. People tend to reference these titles and the theories presented in them with surety but I suspect that like me they have never read them at all.

Well, I thought as a person who studied Zoology, Botany and Geology in college and graduated with an advanced degree, that at the end of my life I should read both of these books by Darwin.

Well--was I surprised!

I my wildest dreams I would never consider these works to present 'scientific' evidence of anything. I am appalled by the way Darwin presented some of his ideas, often based upon the Arian culture of the day and his superiority in it and his observations, suppositions, and opinions as well as the same from other people, not necessarily 'scientists'. He plainly says that one of his two goals was to show that species were not a result of special creation. Even from a non-creationist perspective he does not speak of other possibilities of human descent, e.g., evolution from a water ape.

I know that these books may seem ponderous to someone not versed in biology and in some parts may not be understandable since Darwin assumes the reader will have more than basic knowledge of scientific jargon and taxonomy etc. But---those of you who have the time, I highly recommend that you read these two books by Charles Darwin. For me, these works imply something about spiritualism---of all things, intelligent design. racism, mainstream thought, and many, many other issues not really related to evolution and the survival of species. (I am sure that if those who believe in equality of the races ever read these books, both of them would be banned.)

My point is that 'Science', as far as it has advanced today, does not provide the ultimate indefatigable explanation of everything and one never knows whether what they read, even if is revered and "scientific", is fact or fiction. - AOD n

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Bill,
Someone once said, "We are what we think about all day long." If you constantly think about how bad things are, how miserable you are, how much you have been injured, then you are missing an opportunity to experience something good in your life. I know for sure that good things are happening all around you all of the time. You just need to redirect your attention and look for them. No one is going to knock on your door saying, " Congratulations! You have just won a perfect, happy fulfilled life." No, it doesn't happen that way. You have to go out and make you own experience in life so that it will be a rewarding--- and yes---a happy one. It is up to you!

Bill, you can wallow in misery and nihilism if you choose to or you can find a purpose for living. If you think that this is your one and only chance at life, then why not make the best of it and find interesting things to do that give you pleasure and fulfillment. Millions of people never get a chance at life. Don't waste yours!

Negativity pulls everyone down around you, do something to build rather than destroy. Help others and yourself to have a better life experience.

As you say Bill,---Cheers! - AOD

[Bill]

"This is not a battle Bill"

I am afraid it is to some people Amos, it is the believer vs skeptic debate. And nobody ever agrees on anything. I am trying to change this by building possible links between skeptics and proponents of the paranormal. I am uploading both proponent and skeptic literature online. I will cover this in my essay.

By the way like yourself I have a great respect for Walter Franklin Prince, I have uploaded his paper here on Doris Case of Multiple Personality so anyone can read it for free:

https://archive.org/details/Doris_201605

I also uploaded "Noted Witnesses For Psychic Occurrences"

https://archive.org/details/NotedWitnessesForPsychicOccurrences

I uploaded his papers that debunked fraudulent mediums as well. But I think this book will be well received by Prescott or yourself and other followers here. It goes into various psychic occurrences from famous people.

I object to Juan's charge that I am a "troll". It takes a significant amount of time to upload all of these old papers and books online. As far as I know not many people do this. Anyway I won't be posting on this blog again it is too heated around here. I will let you know when my essay is complete. I am hoping Robert McLuhan takes an interest in this, I am interested in seeing his Encyclopedia and how different it is to my research. Cheers.

[Juan]

"We live in a cold material universe, and when we are dead we are dead just like all the other organisms that die in nature every second every minute."

And you have not tried any of my answers.

"I think an afterlife in another dimension free of suffering or this limited physical form would be fantastic but I have not come across any evidence it exists."

It's your problem, because the casuistry exists and has already been shown on several occasions why chances are there is an afterlife in the light of this casuistry, but you're still ignore it, typical of a troll.

[Kathleen]

Bill, NDEs do indeed present compelling evidence of survival. There is no way to account for the existence of experiences of NDEs, or to account for the fact that the majority of NDEs have a similar narrative, and are narrative in nature - i.e., they are not like hallucinations in that those experiencing them see tiny purple elephants.

Second, NDEs serve no useful evolutionary purpose. And how could nature possibly be able to engineer so many similar types of experiences?

Third, NDEs are widely experienced by those of various different cultures and religions, including atheists and materialists. They are equal opportunity.

I write this as neither a New Ager, nor a hyper-religious person, and as a reasonably well-educated person.

[lynn]

"No, I have no reason to believe this. Quantum physics has nothing to do with consciousness."

There's that certitude again. We don't know that Bill. The fact that consciousness arose from the universe, suggests it is inherently part of it. Quantum physics,is the basis of the universe as measures get infinitely smaller. Its still the universe.

Here' a simple experiment on peoples ability to influence a random generator, done by Princeton university.

"For instance, when you toss a coin you get Heads 50% of the times and Tails the remainder of the time. Over a short period, of course, you can get more Heads than Tails (or vice versa) but the 50-50 distribution of Heads and Tails almost always holds good over the longer run. However, in several studies that were conducted several participants showed an uncanny ability to call correctly the end state of the coin when tossed and even went on to influence the spin such that only Heads or only Tails fell when tossed."

European studies show similar results.

He says "Let us look to Quantum Physics for an answer:"

"At a subatomic level, the observer helps to determine a state for the observed. That is just the act of observation.
If just the act of observation can influence the outcome, then what effect does a directed thought and directed energy field have on the observed?"

I guess he thinks differently than the man you quote Bill.

Cheers.

[Juan]

"Anyway I won't be posting on this blog again it is too heated around here."

That fits with troll behavior and you still not respond to the objections above.

[Matt Rouge]

Bill wrote (dealing with the most important thing first):

||There is only pain in this world. I always wanted to believe in an afterlife to eliminate my suffering but now I am beginning to just want to embrace death because I know it is a permanent cure. I think an afterlife in another dimension free of suffering or this limited physical form would be fantastic but I have not come across any evidence it exists. Take care.||

This is depression, man. I don't care if you agree with me or not, you deserve compassion and care too. Even if you don't believe in a spiritual reality, you can get some meds that will at least help you feel a bit better. Go see your GP and talk about medication and therapy.

||The reception will probably be negative. But someone had to try and do something. There has been too much pseudo-skepticism. People from the modern day paranormal community like to laugh at skeptics but I will show that many of them were well informed about this subject and took it very seriously in the past. I was just giving you a heads up anyway. All my effort is currently being put into this.||

Hey, if you can brilliantly bridge the gap between Skepticism and Belief, kudos. I haven't seen that brilliance at work in your posts yet, however. In fact, you seem to be an overconfident dogmatic denier of everything that doesn't fit your worldview. I mean, to build a bridge, you need to connect with both sides, and I don't think you've said anything yet to win over those of us on this side. Or even make us say, "Hmm, he has a point..."

But whatever. That's only one aspect of you as a person, and it hardly defines you. Get help for your issue, and I hope you feel better soon.

[lynn]

Paul, I just saw your comments on being "gay". Apparently there are differences in male/ female brain structure due to hormonal and metabolic differences between males and females. Those of one sex that feel they are another, have been shown to have the brain structural pattern of the preferred sex.

Recent research suggests also, that upbringing can affect out sexual preference. I found this interesting, as by chance I spoke to a guy who was brought up by nuns. He said as a teen, he had no sexual feelings at all, and felt it was the atmosphere he was brought up in.

I think feeling one way or another is probably personal, differs by culture and gender. I don't know, but like your observations, I notice, more so in lesbian relationships, one person is often decidedly more feminine than the other. In Thailand here, they tend to wear makeup, act quite effeminate and take on the persona of the other sex (males).

I was referring however to trans-genders as well as gay people. The young child I mentioned for example, appeared to be transgender. Lyn x.

[Bill]

Well I wasn't going to respond, but this will have to be my last.

"It's your problem, because the casuistry exists and has already been shown on several occasions why chances are there is an afterlife in the light of this casuistry, but you're still ignore it, typical of a troll."

No, I don't ignore anything Juan if you read my posts I cite and upload articles and books both by proponents and skeptics, this is something you have never done.

I apologize if I have not understood some of your previous posts but English is not your first language and it is sometimes hard to understand your points. You appear to approach this subject from a philosophical, not a scientific viewpoint.

You rarely cite any references or specific cases so it not really possible for me to look into your afterlife claims. You seem to have a history of making claims without providing evidence. Cite me your best evidence and I will look into it, but I have already seen it. I am not convinced I am afraid or Garrett, Piper or the cross correspondences.

If there was empirical, repeatable scientific evidence for an afterlife the scientific community would have embraced it a long time ago. There is no conspiracy.

I have recently joined the international skeptics forum (JREF foundation). Over there skeptics just use ad-hominem attacks against believers claiming they are anti-science or trolls if they express a belief in the afterlife. What you are doing Juan is really no different, but the opposite end of the spectrum.

Obviously this subject is emotional to some people and temper may get the better of them but the whole situation is rather futile. There needs to be some sort of civility if we are to get anywhere on discussing these cases. Take care.

"Here' a simple experiment on peoples ability to influence a random generator, done by Princeton university."

Sorry but I believe we should cite our sources.

You seem to have copied this from a wordpress, not a scientific source:

https://godplaysdice.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/the-secret-life-of-slot-machines/

I have no reason to believe such statements from these experiments are true. What you have cited was a discredited parapsychology experiment that was never replicated outside of Princeton. Replication is very important in science.

Robert G. Jahn's psychokinesis experiments contained methodological flaws and were never repeated outside of his own lab:

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy

"I guess he thinks differently than the man you quote Bill."

If you click on the wordpress blog you pasted in, you would see it was not written by a scientist Lynn. Those comments were written by Sunil Padiyar the author of "a recently published book titled The Psychic Gambling Supersystem."

But yes I admit he thinks different than me. "The premise of [his] book is that all humans have their physical bodies overlaid with a “subtle” body of energy"

This is new age talk Lynn. I would love to believe it, but all evidence is seriously lacking for subtle bodies.

As for NDEs Kathleen, there is a new book out on June 1, which explains these from an evolutionary/materialistic point of view:

http://universityofcalifornia.edu/news/flitting-through-eternity

I am looking forward to this book. I recommend it. I do not believe NDE/s are evidence for an afterlife. But I will change my view if any positive evidence comes in. Take care.

[SPatel]

On quantum mechanics and its relation to consciousness I'd note Penrose-Hammeroff Orch-OR theory not only predicted quantum effects in biology but also the quantum vibrations of microtubules in the brain.

Another theory is that of Jonjoe McFadden where quantum effects work in conjunction with a brains endogenous field.

Another is from biologist Stuart Kauffman, involving a "Poised Realm" between quantum potential and classical actuality.

It may turn out to be the case that consciousness has nothing to do with the quantum but any certainty in the matter is premature.

@ AOD: I'd agree the advancement of religion ties together with the advancement of civilization. Even Chomsky, himself an atheist, notes the notion of a soul promoted a sense of shared humanity that helped inspire progress in how humans treat each other.

I even suspect there's a higher truth religions point to - orthodoxies may diverge but mysticism has a strong convergence.

OTOH, certainty about metaphysics had led to a variety of problems in history...but I'd say at this point the materialist cults are currently worse on that front where parapsychology is concerned.

[Reality Check]

There are people who live in painful and debilitating realities. Thoughts arising from such realities cannot be dismissed with, "Oh, where did that thought come from, it's not important to think about it now". Put yourself in the shoes of the person who is homeless and hopeless, the person in unrelenting poor health, the person afflicted with depression or mental illness, the person who struggles to make ends meet, or maybe the person who the world scorns everyday because s(he) doesn't look like right. It's not that the subconscious continually brings it up, their living and breathing reality does.

If Michael's depiction of the book is correct, it seems to me it's designed for shallow people with shallow concerns. And it's wisdom breaks down well before Michael's lurid prison camp and hostage to serial killer scenarios. I'm surprised that he seems to think that it work until his proposed breaking points.

[Michael Prescott]

"There are people who live in painful and debilitating realities."

True. Carlson's book is more about the way that people in ordinary circumstances can drive themselves crazy by taking their thoughts too seriously. Certainly if you are homeless, gravely ill, clinically depressed, etc., then this method will be of little value. I was exaggerating a bit when I talked about being a captive of a serial killer.

"It's designed for shallow people with shallow concerns."

I'd say it's designed for ordinary people with everyday concerns.

"This is depression, man. I don't care if you agree with me or not, you deserve compassion and care too."

I understand both Matt's comment and Bill's comment, which inspired it. There are times when I feel the way Bill does. ("I am beginning to just want to embrace death because I know it is a permanent cure.") I sometimes feel that the best afterlife of all would be no afterlife, just oblivion. And it's hard for me to disagree that this world consists of a lot of pain, though I wouldn't say it's *only* pain.

At other times I find this view overly defeatist and ascribe it to my mood.

One respect in which I differ from Bill is that I find I cannot disbelieve in an afterlife, even if I would sometimes like to. I find the best evidence too persuasive to dismiss. In fact I've been surprised at how deeply ingrained this belief has become in my mind, to the point where it can't be dislodged even temporarily with an effort of will.

But yes, I can see how oblivion can seem more alluring than any other scenario. When you consider the nightmarish worlds reported in some alleged OBEs, nonexistence seems like a comforting alternative!

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Sorry Bill, I have to laugh at your naiveté. My god man, do you have any critical reading skills at all? You seem to have a hissy fit if people don't see things the way you do. How in the world do you see anything to follow-up on based on the following quote from the link you provided?

"Two projects funded by The Immortality Project challenge those suppositions, Fischer said. Israeli neuroscientist Shahar Arzy has discovered structures in the brain where life-reviews can be stored. And researchers in Spain recreated near-death experiences in virtual reality and achieved personality transformations like those reported after many NDEs."

You seem to accept anybody's and everybody's opinion or comment whoever they may be as long as it validates your nihilism.

I don't usually criticize people much but, let me tell you that your comments do get tiresome. And, if you say you are going to leave this site, then leave! Otherwise stop whining around and stay in the conversation whether you win or lose!- AOD

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Now, now Michael count your blessings. I know that you have had a few. In many ways you have been very successful I would say. Life can be challenging, I know mine has been and over the years it hasn't gotten any better in fact the bitter lessons seem to be burrowing in more and more. But, I'm still here and I am able to watch each new day unfold before me for good or ill.

I find that these are very depressing times we live in now and I am better off if I don't listen to the radio or television. I am addicted to the internet news sites though and I think they are the worst in bringing negativity and despair right into my living room. .

I'll bet you have no idea how many people can't wait to look at your blog every day: I know I do. You have no idea how many lives you have touched and brought new learning and maybe some peace of mind.

Those of us who are alone have an especially difficult time of it . I think all of us do better if we have other people in our lives. Difficult sometimes to accomplish but it is worth the effort even if we have to change old habits to do it. Reach out, join in and shout out loud.

Regular exercise does wonders so does 9 hours of sleep and a nutritious diet. But,in spite of all of our efforts however , I believe that our destiny always wins. Not my will be done, but God's. - AOD

[Juan]

"You rarely cite any references or specific cases so it not really possible for me to look into your afterlife claims. You seem to have a history of making claims without providing evidence. Cite me your best evidence and I will look into it, but I have already seen it. I am not convinced I am afraid or Garrett, Piper or the cross correspondences."

It is as if you should later and that although you have already commented on this blog a while, but an example:

http://www.airclima.ru/books/EnigmaSurvivalHart.pdf

[Julie Baxter]

There are many excellent comments here today - and in the past few day and there are several that I would like to respond to in detail . . . . . but I'm afraid it would take too long and I've so many things to do each day.

But if I may be permitted to offer a little (albeit unsolicited) advice to everyone here: thoughts mirror life and, just as in life itself, you have to hold your nerve.

As a lifelong horsewoman, I can say the above with conviction. Horses have taught me much - as much as life itself - and certainly how to navigate it as courageously as possible.

Never be spiritually defeated by anything or anyone . . . .and certainly not by your own thought process. Self mastery is everything.

[SPatel]

Last I checked Flitting through Eternity isn't written by scientists either.

And isn't Fischer deep in the materialist faith? My understanding is he's been an aggressive missionary for the naturalist, anti-theist belief system for quite some time?

[Juan]

About the near death experiences, it are evidence of an afterlife for two reasons:

1) Lucid and orderly experiences while brain activity crumbles (with temporary markers that allow us to know when the experience ocurrs). No matter that there are no recorded brain activity in these instances, because such activity is accompanied by lucid and orderly experience suggests that the psyche is not so dependent of the nervous system.

2) Veridical and extrasensory experiences, extracorporeal experiences or Peak in Darien cases, whose information could not be obtained by known senses, memory or luck.

Skeptics deny some of these points primarily the second, but the fact is that there is evidence of circumstantial nature concerning both points.

[Bruce Siegel]

Michael and crew, here's my own version of the idea that thoughts are over-rated. It's not a prescription for others, but an approach that has been central to my own growth. It stems from my involvement with primal therapy, which I've discussed here before.

We have an expression in this therapy: "I'm in my head." It means I'm currently thinking instead of feeling. I'm avoiding the discomfort of fully experiencing a challenging emotion by trying to think my way out of it.

For example, in the midst of a health crisis, I recently saw a doctor who decided, for reasons I won't get into, that he refused to continue seeing me as a patient. I was hurt and furious.

Later that day, I found myself endlessly going over the conversation I had with his nurse, the one who broke the news to me. I found myself building a case against her and him—going over the reasons they were wrong and I was right. I argued with them in my mind.

I was in my head.

Finally, I broke free, and said to myself: none of these thoughts matter. What counts is how I feel: I am angry you goddammed c**t and and you fucking a**hole!

Yes—it's important that I released all notions of restraint, politeness, and right or wrong, and simply went with my pure animal rage. I went into a little soundproof space I have and proceeded to yell and pound on the wall.

Afterwards, I felt considerably better. Not completely at peace, by any means, but the inner struggle was largely gone. The thoughts were no longer so pressing. (Though it took a week or so for them to fully disappear.)

The same sort of process happens with me over and over in relation to fear. Like anger, I've learned to embrace it rather than run from it. Not to overplay it, but to explore it. To study it. To experience fear in its entirety as it manifests in my mind and body, rather than avoid even the tiniest part.

As I said, this is not a prescription for everyone. The process works for me, in part, because I have people in my life who support me in this approach. It's difficult to feel and process pain that we're not able to fully express to a friend or therapist.

For me, it's all about the feelings that give rise to the thoughts. (Though others may emphasize the reverse.) That's probably because I had to hide my feelings so completely as I was growing up.

[Matt Rouge]

Michael wrote,

||One respect in which I differ from Bill is that I find I cannot disbelieve in an afterlife, even if I would sometimes like to. I find the best evidence too persuasive to dismiss. In fact I've been surprised at how deeply ingrained this belief has become in my mind, to the point where it can't be dislodged even temporarily with an effort of will.||

This reflects my sentiment exactly. Our mutual friend Ian has said much the same thing. He has said that the notion of the Afterlife seems absurd on its face but, as it turns out, the evidence is so strong that if one acknowledges it, one is left with no choice but to believe that something is going on.

I can't say exactly what is going on, but I feel 100% confident saying one thing: materialism has been disproved by a wide variety of phenomena.

[lynn]

Thoughts should never be under rated. Your are what you think, and they are causal to what you do. i feel really strongly about this and think children at school from young should be taught how to problem solve, have constructive thinking, and learn to control their emotions. So many people go through life, abusing drugs and others, as they have no idea how to behave and poor emotion control.

It is the basis of psychological theory and shown to work. A commenter suggested that you can't be positive when you are in dire circumstances. Those in concentration camps however talk of keeping positive is what kept them alive. Many who have had cancer, also say how it made them treasure life. i remember seeing a picture of a grandmother during World War Two, rocking her grandchild while standing in front of a pit, waiting to be shot. She deiced her and the little one would enjoy there last moments.

Most useful for everyday life, but what have you got however when in the worst of situations, except seeing the positive to help you cope.

By the way Michael, love your posts, like Amos, I feel they do a great public service among other things. Lyn x.

[lynn]

Ahh decided, their, not there in the last post. Always in a hurry these days. Cheers

[John]

Bill, did I see that right? Did you post a link from CSICOP? Oh, brother. That is a propaganda group.

[chel]

I have to wonder if Bill actually is depressed or just saying the most melodramatic things he can muster in the hopes we'll think it's deep.

The Wise Sloth puzzles me because he's so stuck up about religion and God yet openly believes in intelligent design. Guess it shows the debate's more complicated than most would have you believe.

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

Bruce,
In no way do I want to demean anything that works for you. We all need to find ways to bring us peace. I tend to think however that what we see playing out before us today in terms of protest movements, is a result of allowing feelings and emotions to reign unchecked by thought. - AOD

[Kathleen]

Bill, what possible evolutionary reason could there be for NDEs?

It's true that in certain life-and-death situations, the body will release hormones that calm and numb the person.

So the body will release these hormones to calm the person and/or to numb pain. That probably leaves the person better able to focus on possible actions to take or and better able to take those actions, giving them a better chance of survival.

But how in the world could nature program a narrative story in which the person meets dead relatives and pets, passes over boundaries, etc.? And why? What would be the point? If it's to keep the person calm somehow, why not trigger the memory of a very pleasant experience for that person - such as swimming, hiking, etc.?

I just don't see how nature could "program" NDEs to occur, and why it would do so anyway. And it can't be a case of people believing that NDEs are real and causing them to occur, because even those who don't believe in an afterlife have experienced them too.

[SPatel]

This was posted in a Skeptiko thread:

The Growing Evidence for Demonic Possession: What Should Psychiatry’s Response be?

https://www.academia.edu/3286573/The_Growing_Evidence_for_Demonic_Possession_What_Should_Psychiatry_s_Response_be

I'm wary of the ways irrational belief in demons can lead to deaths, especially for children of overzealous parents, but I do wonder if there are ways to incorporate certain ideas in a metaphysically neutral fashion.

For example looking at shamanic healing for mental problems - does it matter if the auras aligned, the past life was reconciled, or the brain wiring was "hacked" so long as the patient is healthier?

[Amos Oliver Doyle]

SPatel,
You're right! What matter does it make if people take placebos if they feel better as a result - AOD

[chel]

Juan, "casuistry" might not be the word you're looking for, the primary definition given by Google is "use of clever but unsound reasoning".

[chel]

Can anyone comment on the accuracy/usefulness of Bill's links? I suspect the answer to both is nothing but some better-informed input on them would be nice.

[David Chilstrom]

Chel:

"Can anyone comment on the accuracy/usefulness of Bill's links? I suspect the answer to both is nothing but some better-informed input on them would be nice."

I sometimes feel like I'm on a fool's errand chasing down Bill's sources, but often I find something interesting there, frequently at odds with the conclusions that Bill habitually draws. Bill complains that the article God Plays Dice is from a WordPress blog and not a scientific source. Yet, the article Bill cites; The PEAR Proposition: Fact or Fallacy? appears in the Skeptical Enquirer, an organ of CSI that furthers their mission to

“Maintain a network of people interested in critically examining paranormal, fringe science, and other claims, and in contributing to consumer education”.

I think it’s fair to say that CSI is a political action group focused on influencing public opinion. Though many CSI members and contributors to the Inquirer have science degrees, the publication is not, to my knowledge, a peer reviewed scientific journal.

Despite the fact that the Inquirer is not a bonafide “scientific source”, and therefore by Bill’s own criteria a dubious resource, the author of The PEAR Proposition: Fact or Fallacy? is a scientist and his article is couched in a pop-sci style, which to a layperson sounds scientific enough. Though I’m not competent to agree or disagree with Dr. Jeffers doubts about the work of the PEAR group, as a layman his critique comes across as a sound piece of collegial skepticism, and not the capital “S” kind, the genuine skeptical article.

As an aside, I quite enjoy Bill’s contributions to the comments here and hope he breaks his vow of silence. He clearly has a passionate interest in afterlife studies, which is common ground enough for me.

[Juan]

"Juan, "casuistry" might not be the word you're looking for, the primary definition given by Google is "use of clever but unsound reasoning"."

For "casuistry" I understand set of cases.

[chel]

Is he actually right when he says memory/life review brain structures have been found and so on? I'm pretty sure more would have been made of it if they had, but I don't watch news so I don't know, and I'm autistic and not hugely well informed on this stuff so picking out truth is sometimes hard.

[Kathleen]

Chel, to answer your question, I believe scientists have located memory structure in the brain. But I don't know how they could have identified a "life review structure" in the brain. How could such a thing be possible? And why? Why for instance, would a lack of oxygen in the brain cause us to have life reviews? It wouldn't help us recover faster (particularly if we've had unhappy lives).

I would still like Bill to comment on my last post about how I argue that there's no way that evolution could have produced NDEs. As I explained, the body produces feel-good hormones when in stressful life-or-death or painful situations. But how could evolution "program" NDEs to occur? And such a program or "instinct" would be highly problematic in human beings as our cognitive ability has overridden our instincts. We don't for instance, inherit from our genes how to drive a car or light a fire.

The more I think about it, because NDEs serve no useful evolutionary purpose convinces me more and more that they're real.

[Julie Baxter]

Apropos my comment regarding horses the other day: I just looked on Lucinda Green's facebook page (six-time Badminton winner) and saw the following. Do please watch this short clip. The synchronicity is rather pleasing:

http://forces.tv/84593378

[SPatel]

@ Chel - Recent Skeptiko interview on memory:

http://www.skeptiko.com/stephen-braude-memories-not-in-brain-318/

From more conventional sources:

https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer

This Aeon article quotes neuroscientist Eric Kandel of Columbia University - who won the Nobel for memory research in a marine nail- about how long it will take to understand human memory ->

"100 years."

As such I feel it's safe to dismiss these claims of discovering life-review structures as the usual materialist cult propaganda.

[Juan]

"As I explained, the body produces feel-good hormones when in stressful life-or-death or painful situations. But how could evolution "program" NDEs to occur? And such a program or "instinct" would be highly problematic in human beings as our cognitive ability has overridden our instincts."

I agree with you that NDEs suggest an afterlife but I disagree with you that the evolutionary issue is the most important feature of NDEs to support the afterlife hypothesis, for two reasons.

1) Someone might claim that NDEs evolved to increase the chances of survival of dying.

2) The features of some NDEs that I mentioned, ordened and consistent experiences while brain activity decays and extrasensory and veridical experiences, it does suggest that the psyche is not so dependent on the nervous system and can endure after bodily death.

[Bruce Siegel]

Juan said:

"1) Someone might claim that NDEs evolved to increase the chances of survival of dying."

Except that many NDErs seem reluctant to return, and are even furious at those who resuscitate them. While many people *are* eager to return, I'm not sure you could make the case that it's more than half of those who have an NDE. Without modern medical intervention, the after-death Homecoming might well lead to a larger number of permanent “deaths” than instances of survival.

[Kathleen]

Juan, I get what you're saying, and at first I thought maybe NDEs are there to increase chances of survival. But the fact that somehow nature could program these kind of narrative experiences that most NDEs are? No. Also, some NDEs are upsetting, if not nightmarish.

I entirely agree with you on your second point, however.

[SPatel]

Ian Wardell, who IIRC posts here sometimes, put me on to Hasker's critique of The Myth of an Afterlife:

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/62746-the-myth-of-an-afterlife-the-case-against-life-after-death/

"They do devote some attention to possible falsification of the dependence thesis, chiefly by experiments involving alleged out-of-body or near-death experiences, in which information is supposedly obtained in ways that defy normal scientific explanation. They argue that such positive results as have been obtained are flawed, because the experiments are inade­quately controlled, or because they cannot be replicated, or for other comparable reasons. I am not certain that the standards being applied here are entirely appropriate. If we were examining the claim that paranormal evidence provides conclusive scientific proof of a non-physical mind, the approach taken by Augustine and Fishman might be the right one. But they are aiming higher than this. They are not satisfied with a verdict of "not proven"; their aim is to discredit entirely any and all evidence for an immaterial mind. (As they admit, even a single instance of an actual paranormal event would falsify their hypothesis.) Given this objec­tive, it is questionable whether they can afford to dismiss as irrelevant studies that fall short of perfection; not to speak of anecdotal evidence, which they do not even consider. (Those who believe in an afterlife because of the resurrection of Jesus evidently will not be convinced by this approach.) In medical research less than perfect studies are not typically rejected out of hand; rather they are carefully evaluated for their possible significance. And physicians treating individual patients typically operate with much less than ideal information without thereby being any less rational."

[Art]

When I read books about death bed visions that "this is real" and not some artifact of evolution or the brain or whatever. There is something about the stories that I get the feeling that these people who experience them are going through something profoundly spiritual and amazing and it makes me smile and relax and say to myself "this is what will happen to me when my time comes." My two favorite death bed vision books are Final Gifts by Maggie Callanan and Visions, Trips, and Crowded Rooms by David Kessler.

[Juan]

Michael or another should make another criticism of the book exposed in the link by SPatel.

[Michael Prescott]

"Michael or another should make another criticism of the book exposed in the link by SPatel."

Not me. The book costs $65 and is 700 pages long. And from what I've read about it, it mostly makes the cause that there is close correlation between brains states and mental states. Which is, I'm sure, true - just as there is close correlation between the circuitry of a TV set and the picture and sound it produces. It doesn't follow that TV programs originate inside the set. Correlation is not causality. Besides, it's no good looking at only the neurological evidence; you also have to look at evidence suggesting that the mind can operate apart from the brain (psi, NDEs, mediumship, past-life recall, etc.). I've already read Keith Augustine's long online essay on NDEs, and although it's well researched, I found it tendentious and unconvincing.

Your mileage may vary. Keith's essay, which has garnered a lot of attention, is here for those who would like to read it:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html

[Matt Rouge]

Instead of reading on Infidels.org, I recommend listening to "Infidels" by Bob Dylan.

Joking aside (er, "Jokerman" aside?), here's an important question to ask yourself when looking at any issue in contention of this nature: Are you denying actual phenomenon?

To me, doing so is the epistemological sin that precludes *any* hope of achieving knowledge and understanding about the matter in question. It's exactly what you are *not* supposed to do in science. But this is what the Skeptics do; they have to. Because acknowledging *any single* phenomenon means ripping up their worldview and their community and starting from scratch.

I try my best not to deny phenomena. I don't know what is going on with UFOs, but the phenomena seem real to me. At the very least, we need to explain why so many people around the world are having similar experiences. I was raised Catholic and firmly disbelieve in that religion now, but it seems that people really experienced something with the Miracle of Fatima.

And so on. As a general rule, if people report things that seem to be impossible decade after decade and especially around the world, they are happening. One is free to explore different explanations of the phenomena, even to the point of claiming that the experiencers are misinterpreting them (e.g., many UFO and alien abduction experiencers believe that nuts-and-bolts spacecraft are visiting earth; many don't. But I think it's almost certainly impossible that they are, and I have my arguments... That doesn't mean that the experiences weren't real, however.). What you can't claim is that everyone, decade after decade, was simply "hallucinating" the same thing. That's not plausible.