While listening to some interviews with Natalie Sudman (whose "Application of Impossible Things - My Near Death Experience in Iraq" I have not yet read) recently, I decided to compile a restaurant-napkin list of some general observations of common themes linking NDEs, OOBEs, as well as some "channeled" accounts. Basically, I'm groping toward some ideas of the physics of the non-physical state. Since I'm not a physicist, I doubt that I will come up with much, but I still enjoy the mental exercise of trying.
The Seth books have been helpful here... Some of his more esoteric ruminations (especially "his" descriptions of the "inner senses") seem relevant. According to Seth, our physical world is "camouflage," which we experience with physical senses specially adapted to perceiving within the narrow physical range. These physical senses (in a greatly diminished way) mirror our "inner senses." Thus, when we are not focussed in the physical form, we can "see" and "hear" just as we can when physically focussed... But the "inner senses" are arguably more powerful than our physical ones.
Seth argues that any attempt to understand the "greater" reality by observing it physically will result in "distortion"; we use "camouflage" instruments to measure our camouflage environment, which we process through a brain that is also "camouflage." And while these measurements *usually* result in very consistent picture of reality, it really isn't reflective of the "true" reality. To observe and measure this, we must use our "inner senses."
Is this practical or even provable? As my camouflage brain scribbles this onto a camouflage computer, the camouflage part of me says "no." Yet, even the most materially-focussed part of me wonders, "Can the concept of 'inner senses' elucidate NDE accounts?"
After all, these accounts, while appearing to violate physical laws, are remarkably consistent, internally. This consistency suggests that they are "real," on some level. Can we gain some insight into the "greater" reality by observing the consistencies? It's worth a try.
So here is my back-of-a-napkin list of commonalities that I've noticed, which run through the majority of accounts:
*Synesthesia, with accelerated sensory perception and hyper-reality ("realer than real"). Music is felt; thoughts are seen; colors are understood.
*Lack of sense of separation between self and the perceived external environment; or, a sense of meaningful "connection" between the self and the external environment, or with beings that are perceived.
*Malleability and flexibility of time perception; instead of consciousness being confined to a fixed and linear procession of time, it can rapidly and easily be focussed in multiple directions--events can be accelerated, reversed, or examined in granular detail.
*"Cause-and-effect" is perceived as being only one slice of an event; effects can reach "back" in time and create a cause, and probable timelines resulting from choices not materialized can be followed.
*A sort of "thought transference" can occur that results in complex symbolic gestalts being instantly and non verbally "received," and intuitively understood, without needing to be "thought about."
*Experiencers are conscious of having a body that seems to be physical, but they are often unable to describe the nature of it.
*Experiencers or communicants usually cannot explain "where" they are, suggesting that "physical" concepts of space and location do not apply to the non-physical environment.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Sunday, October 14, 2012
The metaphysical equivalent of Nixon going to China
In today's online grazing I stumbled upon an account of a classic near-death experience that hit all of the salient points: a patient is suddenly stricken by a potentially fatal bout of meningitis; he is quickly rushed to the ER but rapidly loses consciousness. Within hours, his frontal cortex shuts down and he is placed on a ventilator. After several days, with no hope of recovery in sight, the physicians prepare to remove the patient from life support when he makes a miraculous recovery. Over the subsequent weeks of rehabilitation he assembles the narrative of his experience while comatose... writes a book about it and publishes it on Amazon.com.
So what's so unusual about it all (as if we could be blasé to NDEs in the first place)? The account was written by a neurosurgeon, Dr. Eben Alexander, and the account was published in "Newsweek" under the very NDEish title "Heaven Is Real: A Doctor’s Experience With the Afterlife."
What makes Dr. Alexander's account significant is that, if true, his NDE memories were generated during a period when there is clear medical documentation of zero brain activity lasting several days. One of the main critical arguments against the late Pam Reynolds' NDE (experienced when the blood was drained from her body and she was placed in an artificial coma to repair an aneurysm) was that it didn't really occur when he had flatlined, but moments before; and that she confabulated the bulk of her account. It will be more difficult to make this charge in Dr. Alexander's case. And the doctrinaire materialists will have to argue with a credentialed neuroscientist who, presumably, knows what he's talking about when he says that he had "no brain activity."
But what interests me most about Dr. Alexander's account is that it will likely be a critical scientific observation of the out-of-body state. Dr. Alexander was a committed materialist prior to his NDE. So what he has to say about the near-death realm--and what he thinks it means--could be significant. If consciousness can function outside the body, it has to function "somewhere." This "somewhere," I believe, a "real" place, with its own physical laws. Who better to describe this realm than someone immersed in classical materialist beliefs and trained in the scientific method? Much like Nixon going to China, Dr. Alexander went to "heaven," and I predict that what he brings back will more than a few ping-pong players.
So what's so unusual about it all (as if we could be blasé to NDEs in the first place)? The account was written by a neurosurgeon, Dr. Eben Alexander, and the account was published in "Newsweek" under the very NDEish title "Heaven Is Real: A Doctor’s Experience With the Afterlife."
What makes Dr. Alexander's account significant is that, if true, his NDE memories were generated during a period when there is clear medical documentation of zero brain activity lasting several days. One of the main critical arguments against the late Pam Reynolds' NDE (experienced when the blood was drained from her body and she was placed in an artificial coma to repair an aneurysm) was that it didn't really occur when he had flatlined, but moments before; and that she confabulated the bulk of her account. It will be more difficult to make this charge in Dr. Alexander's case. And the doctrinaire materialists will have to argue with a credentialed neuroscientist who, presumably, knows what he's talking about when he says that he had "no brain activity."
But what interests me most about Dr. Alexander's account is that it will likely be a critical scientific observation of the out-of-body state. Dr. Alexander was a committed materialist prior to his NDE. So what he has to say about the near-death realm--and what he thinks it means--could be significant. If consciousness can function outside the body, it has to function "somewhere." This "somewhere," I believe, a "real" place, with its own physical laws. Who better to describe this realm than someone immersed in classical materialist beliefs and trained in the scientific method? Much like Nixon going to China, Dr. Alexander went to "heaven," and I predict that what he brings back will more than a few ping-pong players.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
A classic "abduction" account from the '80s
In the late '80s, I kept a paranormal journal, where I jotted down all my strange and paranormal experiences. Initially, it began as a diary of my OOBEs, which I was having on a fairly regular basis, but it soon devolved into an examination of classic abduction accounts that were entering the UFOlogical mainstream. I quickly became a "believer" in abductions and bought every book I could find on the subject, comparing the accounts to my experiences. I now think that many of my observations were naive and I see most of my entries from that phase as ill-informed and credulous. One entry stood out, however:
I've mentioned this account earlier, but I am surprised at the detail in my account from the time, and how it mirrors the classic "alien" abduction scenario of the 1980s, with a nod to the stalling-automobile phenomenon from the previous decades.
Accounts like this were legion in the '80s, and UFO researchers concluded that whatever intelligence was behind these experiences was plucking unsuspecting humans from their vehicles for the purpose of doing whatever to them. Corollary conspiracy theories were developed that implicated American military involvement in these operations, along with the tacit consent of the "government."
When I read this account now, however, I wonder, "Why would aliens go through the trouble of stopping a moving vehicle on a major road, simply to abduct a relative for a few minutes, when they could have simply waited for her to get home? Seems like a lot of unnecessary trouble to me."
Researchers at the time explained this illogic by arguing that the aliens were on a tight and busy timetable that required them to abduct their victims wherever they might be, regardless of context. Budd Hopkins in particular argued that the aliens' calendar was so stacked that they dispensed with all niceties and plucked their victims out of Manhattan sky-rises, family picnics, and even in the middle of conversations, artfully covering their tracks by erasing memories and bending time. The impetus was a deadline, some major event in our near future that explained both the urgency and the behavior.... with the implication that the event involved something unpleasant.
This scenario, however, has not materialized. There has been no "end game"--no mass population die-offs (of homo sapiens, at any rate), no evidence of widespread hybridization, no "disclosure" of a covert alien agenda.
Bottom line: I think it's stupid to apply contemporary human logic to a phenomenon as slippery as the "human abduction phenomenon." While it's important to compile these accounts and to speculate, it just might be that not only do we not know, we are not able to know.
(June 8, 1988. Wednesday) I neglected to mention the real news that I learned yesterday.... It concerns an abduction that I knew about at the time but have forgotten about since then. In the fall of 1976, about two weeks before my mother's sighting (according to her), [a close relative] was driving up the steep hill that leads into town one night when she saw a large object hover over her car. The object was glowing red and green. Her car stopped and she passed out. When she came to, she noticed that she had been out for thirty minutes. Her car still would not start. Somehow she made her way to the sheriff's office and reported the UFO. She was returned to her car, which then started. This is scary, of course, due to its proximity to both my mother's sighting and to my UFO abduction nightmares.
I've mentioned this account earlier, but I am surprised at the detail in my account from the time, and how it mirrors the classic "alien" abduction scenario of the 1980s, with a nod to the stalling-automobile phenomenon from the previous decades.
Accounts like this were legion in the '80s, and UFO researchers concluded that whatever intelligence was behind these experiences was plucking unsuspecting humans from their vehicles for the purpose of doing whatever to them. Corollary conspiracy theories were developed that implicated American military involvement in these operations, along with the tacit consent of the "government."
When I read this account now, however, I wonder, "Why would aliens go through the trouble of stopping a moving vehicle on a major road, simply to abduct a relative for a few minutes, when they could have simply waited for her to get home? Seems like a lot of unnecessary trouble to me."
Researchers at the time explained this illogic by arguing that the aliens were on a tight and busy timetable that required them to abduct their victims wherever they might be, regardless of context. Budd Hopkins in particular argued that the aliens' calendar was so stacked that they dispensed with all niceties and plucked their victims out of Manhattan sky-rises, family picnics, and even in the middle of conversations, artfully covering their tracks by erasing memories and bending time. The impetus was a deadline, some major event in our near future that explained both the urgency and the behavior.... with the implication that the event involved something unpleasant.
This scenario, however, has not materialized. There has been no "end game"--no mass population die-offs (of homo sapiens, at any rate), no evidence of widespread hybridization, no "disclosure" of a covert alien agenda.
Bottom line: I think it's stupid to apply contemporary human logic to a phenomenon as slippery as the "human abduction phenomenon." While it's important to compile these accounts and to speculate, it just might be that not only do we not know, we are not able to know.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Parapsychology and psychology; madness and the paranormal
Listening to Loyd Auerbach on a recent podcast somewhere, I marveled at how such a rational, objective researcher could be involved with the paranormal... until realizing that while he is a parapsychologist, he is not, necessarily, a paranormalist. Still, he observed that parapsychology is essentially a social science... i.e., not a physical science. As such, it examines human perception and behavior. And I can understand why mainstream psychology does not become involved with the para end of things. Psychology fought like the dickens for years to be considered a "real" science, and with the burning at the stake of rationalists by belief zealots within historical memory, science strives to maintain a safe distance from irrational believers.
Still, I think that there's a bridge somewhere here, but I haven't yet figured out what it means. It's one that is almost never noticed by paranormalists, except in a dismissive way. Otherwise, the connection is discretely ignored: the overlap between several common psychiatric disorders, and the accounts of some of the more fringe paranormalists.
Does this mean that people who, for example, detail intricate and terrifying encounters with "aliens" (uncorroborated by others) mentally ill? Not necessarily. What about those who adamantly claim to channel Archangel Gabriel? What about the conspiracists who frequent "Coast" with warnings about "government" spooks that harass experiencers with mind control devices? Should we accept their testimony at face value, or rather, at least make reference to mainstream scientific descriptions of psychopathology?
I'm not arguing that "real" supernatural or paranormal encounters are evidence of mental illness--but some of them might be. I'm not even arguing that mental illness is at the root of paranormal experiences, even though that's possible, too. But I do think that total immersion into the anti-structural world of the paranormal might result in some psychological damage.
In other news: About a third of the way through "Flipside: A Tourist's Guide on How to Navigate the Afterlife," someone (either the author or an interviewee) recounts a past lifetime memory of his death in the gas chambers at Bergen-Belsen during World War Two. Problem is, there were no gas chambers at Bergen-Belsen, an easily checkable historical fact. So, what was the accountant "remembering"?
Still, I think that there's a bridge somewhere here, but I haven't yet figured out what it means. It's one that is almost never noticed by paranormalists, except in a dismissive way. Otherwise, the connection is discretely ignored: the overlap between several common psychiatric disorders, and the accounts of some of the more fringe paranormalists.
Does this mean that people who, for example, detail intricate and terrifying encounters with "aliens" (uncorroborated by others) mentally ill? Not necessarily. What about those who adamantly claim to channel Archangel Gabriel? What about the conspiracists who frequent "Coast" with warnings about "government" spooks that harass experiencers with mind control devices? Should we accept their testimony at face value, or rather, at least make reference to mainstream scientific descriptions of psychopathology?
I'm not arguing that "real" supernatural or paranormal encounters are evidence of mental illness--but some of them might be. I'm not even arguing that mental illness is at the root of paranormal experiences, even though that's possible, too. But I do think that total immersion into the anti-structural world of the paranormal might result in some psychological damage.
In other news: About a third of the way through "Flipside: A Tourist's Guide on How to Navigate the Afterlife," someone (either the author or an interviewee) recounts a past lifetime memory of his death in the gas chambers at Bergen-Belsen during World War Two. Problem is, there were no gas chambers at Bergen-Belsen, an easily checkable historical fact. So, what was the accountant "remembering"?
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
I actually hope that the global warming skeptics are right, but I'm afraid they're not.
I recently caught the "Coast" interview with Dr. Roy Spencer, who I guess would describe himself as a global warming skeptic. I was impressed with his argument which, on the surface, is reasonable: that we can't demonstrate a strong causal link between the rise of atmospheric CO2, and the apparent rise in relative temperatures in the Northern hemisphere. I personally "believe" in science and I am willing to be persuaded by a well-reasoned scientific argument... And as Dr. Spencer made his case, I found myself rooting for him. But I was ultimately unpersuaded, for a couple of simple but profound reasons.
First, I think that the "global warming" debate is mis-framed. The issue is not that the "rise in CO2 levels is causing the weather to get hotter." To me, the issue is that "the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is resulting in unforeseeable but damaging changes to the ecosphere." Example: a measurable increase in oceanic acidity, due to the declining inability of the oceans to absorb increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2. This increase in acidity has been linked to coral reef die-offs and other imbalances in the ocean. The most apparent explanation for this phenomenon is the increase in atmospheric CO2, which, presumably, did not rise all by itself.
Second, the sea level is also rising, noticeably, and this is already causing problems along the American east coast, as salt water is encroaching onto the mainland and killing off coastal grasslands. The simplest (as in Occam's razor) explanation for this sea level rise is offered by the global warming "proponents."
Fundamentally, the increase in relative temperatures predicted by the global warming models is the least of our concerns. Even the debatable increase in "weird weather" is not especially problematic (although this is predicted by the same models). But if the oceans die, then so do we. And if the sea levels rise precipitously, civilization will be affected.
Ultra-hot summers and squirrelly weather events tend to alarm global warming believers, because they intuitively recognize them as harbingers of events more ominous. The skeptics would do an invaluable service to the world by furnishing irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
First, I think that the "global warming" debate is mis-framed. The issue is not that the "rise in CO2 levels is causing the weather to get hotter." To me, the issue is that "the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is resulting in unforeseeable but damaging changes to the ecosphere." Example: a measurable increase in oceanic acidity, due to the declining inability of the oceans to absorb increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2. This increase in acidity has been linked to coral reef die-offs and other imbalances in the ocean. The most apparent explanation for this phenomenon is the increase in atmospheric CO2, which, presumably, did not rise all by itself.
Second, the sea level is also rising, noticeably, and this is already causing problems along the American east coast, as salt water is encroaching onto the mainland and killing off coastal grasslands. The simplest (as in Occam's razor) explanation for this sea level rise is offered by the global warming "proponents."
Fundamentally, the increase in relative temperatures predicted by the global warming models is the least of our concerns. Even the debatable increase in "weird weather" is not especially problematic (although this is predicted by the same models). But if the oceans die, then so do we. And if the sea levels rise precipitously, civilization will be affected.
Ultra-hot summers and squirrelly weather events tend to alarm global warming believers, because they intuitively recognize them as harbingers of events more ominous. The skeptics would do an invaluable service to the world by furnishing irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
A miscellanea of things
I debated all day about whether to comment on the arrest of Dr. Melvin Morse for the alleged abuse of his 11-year-old daughter. Dr. Morse is well-known in metaphysical circles, appearing regularly on "Coast." I've listened to his interviews... I have a book or two of his. A pediatrician, his specialty has been the study of he near-death experiences of children. He's done good work. If in fact he is proven guilty of child abuse, does this invalidate his research in NDEs? Not really, I don't think, but I have to wonder how it is possible that he same man who wrote:
...could have "grabbed his 11-year-old daughter by the ankle, dragged her across their gravel driveway, brought her inside his home and began spanking her.... [The daughter] told police her father held her face under a running faucet, causing water to go up her nose and all over her face."
Now, it is possible that there's much more to this story than is sketched out in the mainstream press. Still, I can't conceive of any circumstance that would push a father to punish a child in this manner, except maybe one: alcohol. My suspicion is reinforced by the behavior of the mother, Pauline, who witnessed the acts of abuse but stood back and did nothing--stereotypical enabling behavior.
This story--if factually reported--is not quite like that the priest caught abusing choirboys, or the televangelist consorting with floozies. There is nothing about the current "consciousness movement" that requires a person to behave in any particular way, except to follow one's highest ideal. So I really don't think this invalidates Dr. Morse's research (although it does much to discredit it).
In my life, I've known such a man as Dr. Morse. He was highly intelligent, gifted, and spiritually sophisticated. His children regarded him with a mixture of awe and terror. After he died, he appeared to me (and many others) in dreams, dropping bits of wisdom about the after-death state. He was a good man when sober, but he was an alcoholic, and when drunk, he viciously beat his daughters while their mother pretended not to see. He was my grandfather. I never worshipped him like my cousins did. Instead, as a teen, I was disgusted by him, and continued to condemn him until my own life experiences knocked some sense into me.
I now believe that my contempt of him then was a greater sin than his alcoholism. I view him now with understanding and compassion. He could not help his addiction, but I have since learned that we become what we detest in others. So I am mixed about the story of Dr. Morse. I am reluctant to cast any stones, yet. I will wait until the invariable "confession" of "troubles" and "personal failings" required by our culture, along with the requisite stint in rehab, with maybe a weekend of picking up of trash along the Interstate. We'll roll our eyes, and Dr. Morse will move on. His children, however, may not.
I began my career in Critical Care Medicine. I cared for hundreds of critically ill children, while working for Air Lift Northwest. Most of these children died. My goal is nothing less than to change our current culture so when parents have visions or intuitions about their child who has died, they trust and believe their own spiritual experiences.
...could have "grabbed his 11-year-old daughter by the ankle, dragged her across their gravel driveway, brought her inside his home and began spanking her.... [The daughter] told police her father held her face under a running faucet, causing water to go up her nose and all over her face."
Now, it is possible that there's much more to this story than is sketched out in the mainstream press. Still, I can't conceive of any circumstance that would push a father to punish a child in this manner, except maybe one: alcohol. My suspicion is reinforced by the behavior of the mother, Pauline, who witnessed the acts of abuse but stood back and did nothing--stereotypical enabling behavior.
This story--if factually reported--is not quite like that the priest caught abusing choirboys, or the televangelist consorting with floozies. There is nothing about the current "consciousness movement" that requires a person to behave in any particular way, except to follow one's highest ideal. So I really don't think this invalidates Dr. Morse's research (although it does much to discredit it).
In my life, I've known such a man as Dr. Morse. He was highly intelligent, gifted, and spiritually sophisticated. His children regarded him with a mixture of awe and terror. After he died, he appeared to me (and many others) in dreams, dropping bits of wisdom about the after-death state. He was a good man when sober, but he was an alcoholic, and when drunk, he viciously beat his daughters while their mother pretended not to see. He was my grandfather. I never worshipped him like my cousins did. Instead, as a teen, I was disgusted by him, and continued to condemn him until my own life experiences knocked some sense into me.
I now believe that my contempt of him then was a greater sin than his alcoholism. I view him now with understanding and compassion. He could not help his addiction, but I have since learned that we become what we detest in others. So I am mixed about the story of Dr. Morse. I am reluctant to cast any stones, yet. I will wait until the invariable "confession" of "troubles" and "personal failings" required by our culture, along with the requisite stint in rehab, with maybe a weekend of picking up of trash along the Interstate. We'll roll our eyes, and Dr. Morse will move on. His children, however, may not.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Probably legit
I've stumbled upon what I consider to be a "real" medium who does not do cold readings: she's on he Global Radio Alliance as "Spirit Talk Live With Teresa." Her readings are what I consider to be representatives of legitimate spirit contact: She asks no leading questions, does not fish for information, and her information is detailed, accurate, quick, and spontaneous. I don't know much about her, except that I doubt that she's appeared on network television, and can't see that she's selling books on Amazon.com (not that there's anything wrong with that). I can't see that she's appeared on "Coast." She does give readings, but she's about half the price of Hans Christian King, who I consider to be fraudulent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)