Merkabah

[Skarekrow]

The Bridge

[video=vimeo;75008130]http://vimeo.com/75008130[/video]

The new paradigm has taken shape, we are ready for the roles we play to humour the universe.

What a time to live.......

Wholeness​

 

[Skarekrow]

Living Up to the Light: An Invitation

[video=youtube;XtOHUj-4KiY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XtOHUj-4KiY[/video]

Viva Tapper, PhD -- http://www.drtapper.com/

Presented at the IANDS 2010 Conference, Sept. 2-4, in Denver, CO

A Doctor of Philosophy in Nursing and Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner describes her NDE, the aftereffects and ongoing integration weaving comparisons and contrasts from science and spirituality perspectives in understanding.

A proposal for continued research and theory development that informs practice and education is necessary to provide illumination, meaning, and utilization of these mysteries for all.

For more information on near-death experiences, visit http://iands.org​

 

[Skarekrow]

Beyond the Body but not Over the Line:
NDEs and OBEs

[video=youtube;CEo_b-a8XUA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CEo_b-a8XUA[/video]

Beyond the Body but not Over the Line: NDEs and OBEs
Kimberly Sharp, MSW -- http://www.seattleiands.org/htm/after...

Presented at the IANDS 2010 Conference, Sept. 2-4, in Denver, CO

Research has given scant interest to the differences between a near-death experience (NDE) and a non-life threatening out-of-body experience (OBE).
This presentation compares the NDE to the OBE from the vantage point of personal experience, including the author's decades of clinical interviews with adults and children.​

 

[Skarekrow]

This is a very great series called “Light Fantastic” that the BBC did a few years ago.
I highly recommend them.

Light Fantastic


Let There Be Light

[video=youtube;zdK9IrP52bE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zdK9IrP52bE[/video]

The first episode shows how the desire, by Greek, Arab and Christian scholars to penetrate the divine nature of light led to modern science's origins.

The Light of Reason

[video=youtube;7Eonm_8VrUU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7Eonm_8VrUU[/video]

The second episode explores the link between the development of practical tools that manipulate light and the emergence of new ideas.

The Stuff of Light

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VuGjo9oNqao

The third episode charts the discovery of the true nature of light and the subsequent development of modern technology such as electricity and mobile phones.

Light the Universe and Everything

[video=youtube;9QR3waUOWs8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9QR3waUOWs8[/video]

The final episode explores the relationship between light, the eye and the mind and the development of technologies such as photography and cinema.​

 

[Skarekrow]

[video=youtube;jWAa7EigJRs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jWAa7EigJRs[/video]

 

[Skarekrow]

Splendors of the Spirit:
Swedenborg's Quest for Insight

[video=youtube;o-k6HRf0E0g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=o-k6HRf0E0g[/video]

Part 2 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=neo12_YAtq4

Part 3 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pkhOcuLXXcY

Part 4 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0DKQHhD1Rrk

Part 5 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mXyVw85lsHc

Part 6 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=D8e9xSJe7gI

Part 7 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QbexO5dGKq0

"From time immemorial humanity has pursued answers to the fundamental questions -- Who are we?
What is the meaning and purpose of life?
What happens after death?

Two centuries ago in Sweden there lived a man who found remarkable answers to these questions.
His name was Emanuel Swedenborg, an eminent scientist, inventor, statesman and philosopher.

This program conveys the essential and ever-relevant insights brought back by Swedenborg from his unprecedented explorations of the spiritual worlds."

"Emmy Award-winning producer Penny Price portrays the fascinating life and thought of the Swedish Enlightenment scientist and spiritual visionary Emanuel Swedenborg, whom Zen scholar D.T. Suzuki revered as the 'great king of the mystical realm.'

Interweaving breathtaking nature photography, expert interviews, computer animation, and rare, archival stills with dramatic re-enactment featuring acclaimed actor Lillian Gish and contemporary documentary footage, this program conveys the essential and ever-relevant insights brought back by Swedenborg from his unprecedented explorations of the spiritual worlds.

Swedenborg documented the death experience as the soul departs its expired material form, awakens into the afterlife realm, and is stripped of every accretion of personality to gravitate to the level of the upper or nether regions that corresponds perfectly to its innermost nature."​

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

IAMX - "THE UNIFIED FIELD"


[video=youtube;D6MileTHqoc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=D6MileTHqoc[/video]


"The Unified Field"

We are all insane
Counting down every single living day
We are prisoners of fate
I smile at the way everybody accepts the pain

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't feel
Just because I don't feel doesn't mean I don't understand
We are one in the unified field

We are not in the dark
Our animal anger is eating our human hearts
How come everything hurts if nothing lasts
I smile at the way everybody lives in the past

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't feel
Just because I don't believe doesn't mean I don't understand
We are one in the unified field

We are all the same
Counting down every second every living day
We are prisoners of fate
I smile at the way everybody accepts the pain

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't feel
Just because I don't believe doesn't mean I don't understand
We are one in the unified field

I don't care
I don't believe
But I feel, I feel
​

 

[BrokenDaniel]

[video=youtube;Zai0JjGqJLs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zai0JjGqJLs[/video]

It's a rather long conversation, but it's very insightful on a lot of subjects.

 

[Skarekrow]

[video=youtube;Zai0JjGqJLs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zai0JjGqJLs[/video]

It's a rather long conversation, but it's very insightful on a lot of subjects.

I look forward to giving it a listen!!
Thanks!

 

[Skarekrow]

UFOs, Alien Abductions & contact:
the Parapsychological Connection
​

A lecture I gave to the Australian Institute of Parapsychological Research in late November 2014 was an opportunity for me to address an area in UFO research that is often overlooked or often rationalised away.

Instead it should be a strong area of focus to determine if indeed there is a valid "parapsychological" connection, whether it is about the interaction with some sort of advanced technology, or is a folly of misinterpretation or misrepresentation.

​

Some of the many Power Point slides and a summary of my lecture to Australian Institute of Parapsychological Research - North Sydney - Saturday, 29 November 2014:

Drawing on a wealth of anthropological, historical and contemporary research and investigation, the evidence for parapsychological connections in UFO, alien abduction and contact experiences is examined.

With a focus on the Australian experience, events as diverse as the 1868-1873 experiences of Parramatta surveyor and alderman Frederick Birmingham, other historical events, the aboriginal shamanic experience, intense UFO flap experience (such as at Tyringham, Kempsey and Mount Butler near Armidale, some experienced by the author), poltergeist type experiences (such as at Boyup Brook, WA) in contemporary close encounter cases, and abduction and contact type experiences are examined.

The DNA mediated case study of Peter Khoury and a biological sample implicated in an alien abduction milieu yielded extraordinary DNA evidence that led to a long-term study of an alien DNA paradigm hypothesis and the book Hair of the Alien (2005).

Intriguing parapsychological dimensions in this and other case studies are described.
A recent case study examined by the author and Robb Tilley reveal an extraordinary mix of parapsychological, UFO, and alien abduction/contact motifs, that argue for a compelling case for the physical reality of these experiences, including possible "implant" and "missing fetes" evidence.

​

The area around Boyup Brook and Mayanup in south western Western Australian has had a strikingly unusual focus of interest in this area of a possible parapsychological connection.

At this locality particularly 1955-57 there was an extraordinary stone-throwing poltergeist outbreak, which even had "min min" light activity associated with it. The area has also had striking UFO activity, one of the most interesting being a "solid light" "car stop-control" close encounter near Boyup Brook in 1967.

My friends Tony Healy & Paul Cropper have just come out with a great book on the "Australian Poltergeist" experience.
I highly recommend it as an excellent overview of this fascinating area of human experience.

Tony and Paul rate the Mayanup- Pumphery and Boyup Brook events as "the most impressive" in their bulging polt files.
A more detailed account of this extraordinary case study can be found in Helen Hack's book "The Mystery of the Mayanup Poltergeist" (2000), which gives a great detail of intriguing detail about the UFO events inthat locality.

One of them included a farmer's extraordinary encounter with an apparent "solid light" beam on the same night as the 1967 Boyup Brook car event, indeed geographically very close to that event location - a striking confirmation of the UFO "solid light" "car stop" close encounter.

In the farmer's experience he instinctively shut his eyes and put his hands up to shield them from the "intense light".
He reported that when he opened his eyes ""his hand seemed to be semi-transparent with the veins showing in a blue network beneath the skin."

He was not able to moved apparently for 5 or 6 minutes (the same kind of approximate duration in the car case on the same night) until the beam of light vanished.

One of more profound areas of apparent "parapsychological" connection seems to have occurred in what are described as intense "UFO flap" areas, or what I have sometimes described as "UFO hot zones."

I had heavy exposure to one striking example back in my University of New England science study days - Tyringham & Dundarranin on the Dorrigo plateau in northern New South Wales:

​

From the point of view of personal experience, deep research and analysis, the parapsychological connection is an area deserving serious investigation and research to determine what truly is that real nature of that connection.

​

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

The beginnings of a new Ouija board made with wood burner.
(I’ll post the finished product at a later date)

 

[Skarekrow]

Check this out!!
Thinking I may do this...

FREE Parapsychology Course (January 2015)

The Rhine Research Center defines parapsychology as 'the scientific study of interactions between living organisms and their external environment that seem to transcend the known physical laws of nature.

Parapsychology is a component of the broader study of consciousness and the mind.'

It goes on to list the FIVE areas of study within parapsychology:

1. Telepathy-mind to mind communication through a means other than the normal senses.

2. Clairvoyance or Remote Viewing-knowledge of objects, people or events that are hidden via space or time.

3. Precognition-knowledge of an event that has not yet occurred, or information that appears to be transferred from the future into the present.

4. Psychokinesis (PK)-Mind interacting with matter at a distance.

5. Survival Studies-The nature of human consciousness and an examination of whether consciousness survives the physical form.
This includes mediumship research, reincarnation, out of body experiences, apparitions, and ghost activities.

Up until this point, the majority of my interests, and thus work, in the paranormal field have had a fairly narrow focus on Survival Studies, mainly ghosts, apparitions, and hauntings.

However, in order to have a fuller understanding of my chosen focus area, I realize the need for a broader education of the entire parapsychology field.

Luckily, I found a wonderful, FREE opportunity!

Starting on January 5, 2015, the Parapsychology Foundation is partnering with the AZIRE to offer a free course entitled Parapsychology and Anomalistic Psychology: Research and Theory. Hosted through WizIQ, this course will consist of over 22 video lectures running almost daily through February 14th.

A partial list of speakers has been published, and there are some interesting lectures, ranging from those geared to the beginner to those very specific to certain areas of study.

The majority of speakers are associated with the Rhine Research Center in some way or another and are noted in their field as being top researchers.
This link will give you all the information you need to sign up for the course: Parapsychology MOOC
I'm excited for this and I hope some of you will join me in this endeavor!

Source: http://theresashauntedhistoryofthetri-state.blogspot.com/2014/12/free-parapsychology-course-january-2015.html

 

[Skarekrow]

Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking
by Maria Popova
Necessary cognitive fortification against propaganda, pseudoscience, and general falsehood.


​

Carl Sagan was many things – a cosmic sage,voracious reader, hopeless romantic, and brilliant philosopher.
But above all, he endures as our era’s greatest patron saint of reason and common sense, a master of the vital balance between skepticism and openness.

In The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (public library) – the same indispensable volume that gave us Sagan’s timeless meditation on science and spirituality, published mere months before his death in 1996 – Sagan shares his secret to upholding the rites of reason, even in the face of society’s most shameless untruths and outrageous propaganda.

In a chapter titled “The Fine Art of Baloney Detection,” Sagan reflects on the many types of deception to which we’re susceptible – from psychics to religious zealotry to paid product endorsements by scientists, which he held in especially low regard, noting that they “betray contempt for the intelligence of their customers” and “introduce an insidious corruption of popular attitudes about scientific objectivity.” (Cue in PBS’s Joe Hanson on how to read science news.)

But rather than preaching from the ivory tower of self-righteousness, Sagan approaches the subject from the most vulnerable of places – having just lost both of his parents, he reflects on the all too human allure of promises of supernatural reunions in the afterlife, reminding us that falling for such fictions doesn’t make us stupid or bad people, but simply means that we need to equip ourselves with the right tools against them.

​

Through their training, scientists are equipped with what Sagan calls a “baloney detection kit” – a set of cognitive tools and techniques that fortify the mind against penetration by falsehoods:

The kit is brought out as a matter of course whenever new ideas are offered for consideration.
If the new idea survives examination by the tools in our kit, we grant it warm, although tentative, acceptance.

If you’re so inclined, if you don’t want to buy baloney even when it’s reassuring to do so, there are precautions that can be taken; there’s a tried-and-true, consumer-tested method.

​

But the kit, Sagan argues, isn’t merely a tool of science – rather, it contains invaluable tools of healthy skepticism that apply just as elegantly, and just as necessarily, to everyday life.

By adopting the kit, we can all shield ourselves against clueless guile and deliberate manipulation.
Sagan shares nine of these tools:

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight – “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) – not just most of them.
8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the dataequally well to choose the simpler.
9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle – an electron, say – in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

​

Just as important as learning these helpful tools, however, is unlearning and avoiding the most common pitfalls of common sense.
Reminding us of where society is most vulnerable to those, Sagan writes:

In addition to teaching us what to do when evaluating a claim to knowledge, any good baloney detection kit must also teach us what not to do.

It helps us recognize the most common and perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric.
Many good examples can be found in religion and politics, because their practitioners are so often obliged to justify two contradictory propositions.

​

He admonishes against the twenty most common and perilous ones – many rooted in our chronic discomfort with ambiguity – with examples of each in action:

1. ad hominem – Latin for “to the man,” attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g., The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously)
2. argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia – but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a mistake, as it turned out)
3. argument from adverse consequences (e.g., A God meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He didn’t, society would be much more lawless and dangerous – perhaps even ungovernable. Or: The defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives)
4. appeal to ignorance – the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g.,There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist – and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we’re still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
5. special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don’t understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don’t understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity.Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compassion – to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You don’t understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.)
6. begging the question, also called assuming the answer(e.g., We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. But does the violent crime rate in fact fall when the death penalty is imposed? Or: The stock market fell yesterday because of a technical adjustment and profit-taking by investors – but is there any independent evidence for the causal role of “adjustment” and profit-taking; have we learned anything at all from this purported explanation?)
7. observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses (e.g., A state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers)
8. statistics of small numbers – a close relative of observational selection (e.g., “They say 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese. Yours truly.” Or:“I’ve thrown three sevens in a row. Tonight I can’t lose.”)
9. misunderstanding of the nature of statistics (e.g.,President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence);
10. inconsistency (e.g., Prudently plan for the worst of which a potential military adversary is capable, but thriftily ignore scientific projections on environmental dangers because they’re not “proved.” Or: Attribute the declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union to the failures of communism many years ago, but never attribute the high infant mortality rate in the United States (now highest of the major industrial nations) to the failures of capitalism. Or: Consider it reasonable for the Universe to continue to exist forever into the future, but judge absurd the possibility that it has infinite duration into the past);
11. non sequitur – Latin for “It doesn’t follow” (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great. But nearly every nation pretends this to be true; the German formulation was “Gott mit uns”). Often those falling into the non sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative possibilities;
12. post hoc, ergo propter hoc – Latin for “It happened after, so it was caused by” (e.g., Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila: “I know of … a 26-year-old who looks 60 because she takes [contraceptive] pills.” Or:Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons)
13. meaningless question (e.g., What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? But if there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can be no immovable objects, and vice versa)
14. excluded middle, or false dichotomy – considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities (e.g., “Sure, take his side; my husband’s perfect; I’m always wrong.” Or: “Either you love your country or you hate it.” Or: “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”)
15. short-term vs. long-term – a subset of the excluded middle, but so important I’ve pulled it out for special attention (e.g., We can’t afford programs to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets. Or: Why explore space or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?);
16. slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits abortion even in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our bodies around the time of conception);
17. confusion of correlation and causation (e.g., A survey shows that more college graduates are homosexual than those with lesser education; therefore education makes people gay. Or: Andean earthquakes are correlated with closest approaches of the planet Uranus; therefore – despite the absence of any such correlation for the nearer, more massive planet Jupiter – the latter causes the former)
18. straw man – caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack (e.g., Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance – a formulation that willfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn’t. Or – this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy – environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people)
19. suppressed evidence, or half-truths (e.g., An amazingly accurate and widely quoted “prophecy” of the assassination attempt on President Reagan is shown on television; but – an important detail – was it recorded before or after the event? Or: These government abuses demand revolution, even if you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Yes, but is this likely to be a revolution in which far more people are killed than under the previous regime? What does the experience of other revolutions suggest? Are all revolutions against oppressive regimes desirable and in the interests of the people?)
20. weasel words (e.g., The separation of powers of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the United States may not conduct a war without a declaration by Congress. On the other hand, Presidents are given control of foreign policy and the conduct of wars, which are potentially powerful tools for getting themselves re-elected. Presidents of either political party may therefore be tempted to arrange wars while waving the flag and calling the wars something else – “police actions,” “armed incursions,” “protective reaction strikes,” “pacification,” “safeguarding American interests,” and a wide variety of “operations,” such as “Operation Just Cause.” Euphemisms for war are one of a broad class of reinventions of language for political purposes. Talleyrand said, “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public”)

Sagan ends the chapter with a necessary disclaimer:

Like all tools, the baloney detection kit can be misused, applied out of context, or even employed as a rote alternative to thinking.
But applied judiciously, it can make all the difference in the world – not least in evaluating our own arguments before we present them to others.

​

[ONT=ff-tisa-web-pro-1]The Demon-Haunted World is a timelessly fantastic read in its entirety, timelier than ever in a great many ways amidst our present media landscape of propaganda, pseudoscience, and various commercial motives. Complement it with Sagan on science and “God”.[/FONT]​

 

[Skarekrow]

Scientist photographs soul leaving body

[video=youtube;RDmivrnktkQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RDmivrnktkQ[/video]

[video=youtube;kQ4a_Gu49SA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kQ4a_Gu49SA[/video]

(There were two videos that are seemingly connected though not necessarily in order…so I just put both up)

Actual photos of the human soul?
Or part of it?
I am very uncertain and baffled over this phenomena.Can someone elaborate on this?
Or maybe verify or deny the nature of this science?
Its a very interesting piece of work about the field that surrounds/fills the body.
Anyone out there with knowledge about this is hereby invited to please give comments.​

 

[Skarekrow]

The Seven Cornerstone Postulates

These postulates are predicated on contemporary research findings from frontier science in its investigatation of spiritually transformative experiences and non-local manifestations of consciousness, as well as the timeless wisdom from the core pillar teachings of the world's greatest spiritual teachers and major religions.

​

 

[Skarekrow]

Frontier Science Defined

​

The modern formal process of gathering knowledge and gaining understanding about the natural world is called science.
As an organized method of inquiry into understanding the natural world, its methods are very young, only 400 years old, but it has proven to be an extremely successful discipline that is responsible for many aspects of our modern technological society.

Over the years, science has developed a very powerful and successful protocol to investigate new phenomena.
This protocol is called the scientific method of inquiry or scientific method for short.

It is based on observation, hypothesis, experimentation, repeatability, and peer review.
Using this method of inquiry, only when multiple independent efforts have duplicated and validated the experimental results are the new theories accepted.

As productive as the scientific method has been, it is heavily influenced by prevailing paradigms.
Like all previous civilizations throughout history, these paradigms are based on a set of largely unstated assumptions about who and what we really are, what kind of universe we live in, and what is largely important to us.

These assumptions spill over into science just as they do into all human endeavors.
Science has been tremendously successful in the last few hundred years in making our material existence more comfortable.

Because of its successes our existing world view is heavily influenced by the interpretations and pronouncements of the findings and discoveries of science.
So when science proclaims there is no meaning or purpose to our lives and that we are nothing more than biological machines here as a result of some random acts of nature, it creates a huge conflict with our intuitive spiritual understanding of our connection and relationship with all of creation.

​

For anyone attempting to investigate nature beyond the existing paradigms of science, their task can be very challenging indeed.
These investigations are usually described as frontier science.

Because it challenges the very foundations of existing paradigms, frontier science is often met with great resistance by the prevailing scientific establishment.
This establishment is the one that usually controls the funding for new research proposals.

So when research proposals fall outside existing accepted paradigms and attempt to push the boundaries of our knowledge into uncharted territories, they are often summarily rejected and unfunded.

Funding for frontier science research has always been problematic at best.
Although most of the great breakthroughs throughout the history of science have resulted from the efforts of frontier scientists, in recent years frontier science investigations now face a new and significant challenge.

Much of the scientific research in the world today is supported, controlled or heavily influenced by corporate interests.
These interests are much more focused on applied research than basic research.

For in applied research there is a much less risk and higher potential for pay-back that will affect the corporate bottom line then long term basic research which is much riskier but which will significantly enhance and extend humanity’s understanding of nature.

Although the outcome of basic research is highly risky and unpredictable, it often leads to all kinds of long term shifts in perspectives, innovations and applications that were totally unanticipated at the start of the research effort.

In frontier science the risks of achieving major breakthroughs are high but the rewards can also be huge and paradigm shattering.
However with risk-adverse corporations controlling the purse strings of research and development programs, a much smaller percentage of funding is now allocated to basic research and frontier science exploration.

This is problematic since frontier science is perhaps the best means now at our disposal to acquire new knowledge and insights about the nature of reality.
With all the pressing problems our civilization is currently facing, a fundamental change in perspective and understanding is sorely needed.

In just a relatively short span of time, science and resultant technological innovation have completely transformed life on our planet.
They have brought about dramatic improvement in the quality and longevity of life, as well as the human condition in general.

What’s more, the threshold of discovery has been barely crossed.
The greatest achievements and contributions of science have yet to materialize.

Many more significant breakthroughs may soon come about perhaps within the next few decades.
All of these breakthroughs have greatly advanced the material aspects of our lives but they have done little to advance our understanding our spirituality, our relationship to the cosmos, to supply us with answers about the nature of existence or to give us a sense of meaning and purpose for our lives.

In the future, one of the greatest breakthroughs will likely come from the study of interactions between information, energy and matter specifically in the context of their relationship to consciousness.

These breakthroughs, when they occur, will help us arrive at an entirely new understanding or comprehension of the true nature of reality and our place in it.
This shift in perception of the nature of reality could open our eyes to tremendous possibilities, enabling us to construct an optimal future for all manner of life on our planet.

Frontier science is critically under-funded as we have seen.
Most research funding, whether in the form of government or private grants, or charitable giving, flows strictly into the coffers of mainstream, institutional, academic, conventional science, which usually is more focused on contributions and payback to the corporate bottom line.

But as frontier science gathers a greater head of steam through growing awareness of the value of its unique role in the mining of new knowledge, the availability of funding for its critical research initiatives will hopefully improve.

That day cannot come soon enough, for the potential benefits to be realized by allocating greater support for the work of frontier science will far and away exceed whatever the dollar cost might be.

Some who consider themselves frontier scientists would consider it to be multi-disciplinary, non-institutional, off-campus science, literally based in one’s garage, home-office or warehouse laboratory performing research or experimentation or theory construction on the outer fringe of what established science would consider acceptable.

It is their off-hours full time job while their day-time job is often in academic or corporate applied research labs pursuing incremental discoveries leading to ever greater profits for their employers or sponsors.

Frontier science typically operates on a shoestring budget, oftentimes funded by the frontier scientists themselves out of their own pockets, at least for those who are highly motivated and driven by fire-in-the-belly syndrome who cannot find funding for their own work elsewhere.

Many would agree that frontier science is unfettered, untethered and unaffiliated science on the leading edge of discovery, unimpeded by institutional politics or academic territorialism or scholarly egocentrism.

Frontier science, they would say, is not a servant to grant procurement, publishing, impressing one’s peers, pursuit of tenure, or courting the favor of philanthropists, corporate titans or government funding sources and the like.

To be sure, true frontier science serves no masters and is not beholden to any special interest, such as government or the corporate sector or individual benefactors.

It has no special loyalty to established belief systems, theories, paradigms or models.
Rather, it thrives on pushing the envelope in rigorous pursuit of genuine breakthrough discoveries.

Certainly, it is fair to say that frontier science can be non-traditional, unconventional, innovative and improvisational, perhaps even somewhat eccentric by consensual standards.

Frontier scientists are often the proverbial loose cannons, the boat rockers, and the ones who maintain their penchant for pushing the envelope ever further, increasingly beyond its normal limit even when told by the mainstream that what they are seeking is impossible.
In spite of the obstacles, they are driven by the force of their convictions.

Frontier science is usually populated by maverick radical thinkers and visionary revolutionaries who operate outside of the prevailing scientific paradigms box. They are not usually bounded by existing assumptions, intellectual predispositions or preconceived notions, nor are they interested in doing “Bureau of Standards” type scientific work, or becoming the sycophant slaves of funding sources.

Rather, the only master they serve is the burden of empirical proof using the scientific method, or new inventive variations of such.
Often, frontier scientists are found on the extreme edge or cusp of new understanding and knowledge.

They offer the freshest thinking from the most open minds, sometimes chancing upon breakthrough discoveries in the most fortuitous fashion.
To call frontier scientists rebels in their respective fields would not be inappropriate, for they often are distinguished by their unconventional pursuits.

They are the unsung heroes of science today, mostly ostracized and outcast by their peers for going against the grain.
But if the popular adage holds merit that science advances only at the funeral of one established scientist after another, it would not apply to the imaginative men and women of frontier science, who cannot help themselves but to go opposite of prevailing winds, trends and currents.

They willingly pay a dear price for this, but they reason that the pleasure that may come from the contributions they believe they will make to the advancement of knowledge should more than offset the pain and sacrifice they must endure to carry out their vital work.

This is not to suggest that conventional, institutional, mainstream science lacks merit or fails to make meaningful contributions to the advancement of knowledge or that it seldom if ever can be credited with major discoveries.

Nothing is further from the truth.
Conventional science is enormously important and valuable. Its accomplishments are astounding and it continues to impress.

Nor does it imply that all frontier scientists are always pursuing noble goals.
Every human endeavor has its share of crackpots and unrealistic dreamers.

Mainstream science, especially outside of the disciplines of modern physics and cosmology is still largely based on the Newtonian model of reality imparted by Sir Isaac Newton.

This model considers all of reality to be derived entirely from that which is physical or material, meaning that which is observable and can be quantified or measured.

It considers all phenomena to be derivative of physical and material processes.
It totally rejects the notion that reality might also contain a non- physical dimension, such as our consciousness that might exist separate yet interacting with physical-material properties and processes.

Materialist science rejects outright the notion of a human soul, as there is no proof of its existence, and considers consciousness to be solely a by-product of electro-chemical processes in the human brain.

Critics of this model say that it succumbs to nihilism, reductionism and materialism.
Moreover, they argue that it does not adequately explain the full spectrum of phenomena found in nature, especially the rather intriguing matter of consciousness and its interrelationship with matter and energy in influencing reality.

This is where conventional science and frontier science seem to part the company with one another.
One highly promising area of frontier science is the inquiry into the nature of consciousness, as well as its apparent influence on matter and energy.

Conventional science, on the other hand, is dismissive of consciousness as an epiphenomena of bio-chemical brain processes and does not consider it of any import whatsoever at any level of reality.

Yet, it could well be that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of nature serving as an important link between the observable and the unobservable realms of nature.

To be sure, both conventional and frontier science have a rightful and legitimate place at the table where knowledge is sought and found for the greater benefit of all.

Both fulfill important functions in the overall scheme of things.
And, although both forms of science and their methodologies are far from perfect, they remain the best means humanity has yet devised to advance knowledge and discovery.

Moreover, they remain the best available and most credible arbiter for distinguishing that which is true from that which is false.
Scientists, like theologians and religious leaders, can become hopelessly imprisoned by their own dogmas, beliefs, models, theories and doctrines.

Their intellects can become encrusted and rigid.
They can be as change-resistant and recalcitrant as the most stubborn everyday human beings.

But stubborn adherence to fixed ways of viewing reality or perceiving any given phenomena never serves the pursuit of objective truth.
Sometimes, even the most prominent thinkers fall victim to this mind trap.

Knowledge procured by frontier science may be our best hope for achieving the brightest possible future for humanity.
Once fully embraced and accepted by mainstream science, it will furnish new insights into the huge questions concerning life’s meaning and purpose.

Frontier scientists are closing in on answers to who we are and why we’re here, and where we may be heading in the future if we resolve to make smart enlightened choices.

When this knowledge becomes popularly understood and integrated into consensual belief systems, it will light a path out of the darkness and despair now upon the face of the land.

It might occasion a whole new beginning or turning point for humanity.

 

[Skarekrow]

Does Consciousness Depend on the Brain?

In this materialistic age, dualists are often accused of smuggling outmoded religious beliefs back into science, of introducing superfluous spiritual forces into biology, and of venerating an invisible "ghost in the machine." However, our utter ignorance concerning the real origins of human consciousness marks such criticism more a matter of taste than of logical thinking. At this stage of mind science, dualism is not irrational, merely somewhat unfashionable.

Physicist Nick Herbert
Elemental Mind.
​

In March 1987 Dawn Gillott was admitted to Northampton General Hospital, seriously ill with pneumonia.
After being placed in intensive care, the physicians decided to perform a tracheotomy because she could not breathe.

The next thing I was above myself near the ceiling looking down.
One of the nurses was saying in what seemed a frantic voice, ‘Breathe, Dawn, breathe.’

A doctor was pressing my chest, drips were being disconnected, everyone was rushing round.
I couldn’t understand the panic, I wasn’t in pain.

Then they pushed my body out of the room to the theatre.
I followed my body out of the ITU and then left on what I can only describe as a journey of a lifetime.

I went down what seemed like a cylindrical tunnel with a bright warm inviting light at the end.
I seemed to be traveling at quite a speed, but I as happy, no pain, just peace.

At the end was a beautiful open field, a wonderful summery smell of flowers.
There was a bench seat on the right where my Grandfather sat (he had been dead seven years).

I sat next to him.
He asked me how I was and the family.

I said I was happy and content and all my family were fine.
He said he was worried about my son; my son needed his mother, he was too young to be left.

I told Grampi I didn’t want to go back, I wanted to stay with him.
But Grampi insisted I go back for my children’s sake.

I then asked him if he would come for me when my time came.
He started to answer, ‘Yes, I will be back in four —’ then my whole body seemed to jump.

I looked round and saw that I was back in the ITU.
I honestly believe in what happened, that there is life after death.

After my experience I am not afraid of death as I was before my illness.1

The near-death experience described above is not rare.
Hundreds of similar cases — involving people reporting that while seriously ill or injured they left their bodies, observed the surrounding scene, entered a tunnel, emerged in another world where they meet deceased friends or relatives before returning to their bodies — have been documented in several different countries.

The case above is not even a particularly impressive one.
At first glance, such cases seem to indicate that under life-threatening circumstances the conscious part of us is capable of detaching from our physical bodies, and may travel to another world.

The over-whelming majority of those who have had such experiences are convinced of the existence of an afterlife.
However, there are those that disagree, and who argue that such experiences simply cannot be what they at first seem to be.

The strongest arguments against the existence of an afterlife are those that deny the possibility of consciousness existing apart from the biological brain.
The Greek atomists were the first to define the soul in terms of material atoms.

Epicurus (342-270 BC) defined the soul as “a body of fine particles …most resembling breath with an admixture of heat.” He stressed the complete dependence of soul on body, so that when the body loses breath and heat, the soul is dispersed and extinguished.

The Roman poet Lucretius (99-55 BC) took up the arguments of Epicurus, and continued the atomist tradition of describing the mind as composed of extremely fine particles. Lucretius wrote one of the earliest and most cogent treatises advancing the arguments that the relation between mind and body is so close that the mind depends upon the body and therefore cannot exist without it.

First, he argued that the mind matures and ages with the growth and decay of the body; second, that wine and disease of the body can affect the mind; third, the mind is disturbed when the body is stunned by a blow; and finally, if the soul is immortal, why does it have no memories of its previous existence?

Similar arguments, to the effect that the mind is a function of the brain, were taken up with greater force nineteen centuries later, in the work of men such as Thomas Huxley.
More recently, Corliss Lamont, former president of the American Humanist Association, has written one of the most extensive statements of the materialist positions in his book The Illusion of Immortality, the title of which speaks for itself.

He tells us in the preface that he started out as a believer in a future life, but does not give us the reasons why he held the belief against which he reacted so strongly.
Lamont rightly contends that the fundamental issue is the relationship of personality to body, and divides the various positions into two broad categories: monism, which asserts that body and personality are bound together and cannot exist apart; and dualism, which asserts that body and personality are separable entities which may exist apart.

Lamont is convinced that the facts of modern science weigh heavily in favor of monism, and offers the following as scientific evidence that the mind depends upon the body:

 in the evolutionary process the versatility of living forms increases with the development and complexity of their nervous systems

 the mind matures and ages with the growth and decay of the body

 alcohol, caffeine, and other drugs can affect the mind

 destruction of brain tissue by disease, or by a severe blow to the head, can impair normal mental activity; the functions of seeing, hearing and speech are correlated with specific areas of the brain.

 thinking and memory depend upon the cortex of the brain, and so “it is difficult beyond measure to understand how they could survive after the dissolution, decay or destruction of the living brain in which they had their original locus.”2

These considerations lead Lamont to the conclusion that the connection between mind and body “is so exceedingly intimate that it becomes inconceivable how one could function without the other … man is a unified whole of mind-body or personality-body so closely and completely integrated that dividing him up into two separate and more or less independent parts becomes impermissible and unintelligible.”3

Lamont briefly considers the findings of psychical research, but contends that they do not alter the picture, because of the possibility of other interpretations, such as fraud and telepathy. (Lamont’s portrayal of psychic research is extremely superficial, and contains several false and misleading statements. For an excellent critique of Lamont’s book, exposing a mass of inconsistencies and non-sequitur, see chapter XIII of A Critical Examination of the Belief in a Life after Death, by C.J. Ducasse. )

In summary, the various arguments against the possibility of survival are: the effects of age, disease, and drugs on the mind; the effect of brain damage on mental activity, and specifically, the fact that lesions of certain regions of the brain eliminates or impairs particular capacities; and the idea that memories are stored in the brain and therefore cannot survive the destruction of the brain.

The inference drawn from these observations is that the correlation of mental and physical processes is so close that it is inconceivable how the mind could exist apart from the brain. Except for the appeals of the modern writers to the terminology of neuroscience, the arguments advanced in favor of the dependence of the mental on the physical are essentially the same as those advanced by Lucretius.

The issues at stake

There are really two separate issues here: one is the logical possibility of survival, and the other is the empirical possibility.
The arguments of the epiphenomenalists, the identity theorists, and the behaviorists are logically inconsistent with the idea of survival: if consciousness is merely a useless by-product of brain activity, or is identical with brain activity, or does not really exist except as observed behavior, then obviously what we call consciousness cannot survive the destruction of the brain.

However, as we have seen earlier, there seems to be compelling reasons for rejecting the first of these theories, and it is questionable if the latter two theories are at all consistent with observation and introspection — or for that matter, are anything more than just silly.

If however, we are willing to admit the existence of consciousness and not only as a useless by-product, then the post-mortem existence of consciousness is at least a logical possibility — that is, there is no self-contradiction in the assertion that consciousness may exist in the absence of a brain.

Then the question becomes whether or not survival is an empirical possibility — that is, whether or not the idea of survival is compatible with the facts and laws of nature as currently understood.

Implicit Assumption behind the empirical arguments against the possibility of survival

All the arguments mentioned above that are opposed to the empirical possibility of survival are based upon a certain assumption of the relationship between mind and body that usually goes unstated.

For instance, one of the arguments mentioned earlier starts with the observation that a severe blow to the head can cause the cessation of consciousness; from this it is concluded that consciousness is produced by a properly functioning brain, and so cannot exist in its absence.

However, this conclusion is not based on the evidence alone.
There is an implicit, unstated assumption behind this argument, and it is often unconsciously employed.

The hidden premise behind this argument can be illustrated with the analogy of listening to music on a radio, smashing the radio’s receiver, and thereby concluding that the radio was producing the music.

The implicit assumption made in all the arguments discussed above was that the relationship between brain activity and consciousness was always one of cause to effect, and never that of effect to cause.

But this assumption is not known to be true, and it is not the only conceivable one consistent with the observed facts mentioned earlier.
Just as consistent with the observed facts is the idea that the brain’s function is that of an intermediary between mind and body — or in other words, that the brain’s function is that of a two-way receiver-transmitter — sometimes from body to mind, and sometimes from mind to body.

The idea that the brain functions as an intermediary between mind and body is an ancient one.
Hippocrates described the brain as “the messenger to consciousness” and as “the interpreter for consciousness.”

But, like the materialist theory, this ancient argument also has its modern proponents — most notably Schiller, Bergson, and James.
Ferdinand Schiller was an Oxford philosopher in 1891 when a book titled Riddles of the Sphinx appeared which, according to the cover, was written by a “Troglodyte” (cave-dweller).

This troglodyte turned out to be Schiller, who in his book attacked the prevailing materialism of the late nineteenth without revealing his name in order to avoid “the barren honours of a useless martyrdom.” Schiller likened himself to the man in Plato’s Republic who has glimpsed the truth but finds that his fellow cave-dwellers simply do not believe his accounts, and so consider him ridiculous.

In his book Schiller proposes that “matter is admirably calculated machinery for regulating, limiting and restraining the consciousness which it encases.”
He argues that the simpler physical structure of “lower beings” depresses their consciousness to a lower point, and that the higher organizational complexity of man allows a higher level of consciousness.

In other words,
Matter is not what produces consciousness but what limits it and confines its intensity within certain limits … This explanation admits the connection of Matter and Consciousness, but contends that the course of interpretation must proceed in the contrary direction.

Thus it will fit the facts which Materialism rejected as ‘supernatural’ and thereby attains to an explanation which is ultimately tenable instead of one which is ultimately absurd.
And it is an explanation the possibility of which no evidence in favour of Materialism can possibly affect.4

As for the effects of brain injury, Schiller argues that an equally good explanation is to say that the manifestation of consciousness has been prevented by the injury, rather than extinguished by it.

With regard to memory, he thinks that it is forgetfulness rather than memory that is in need of a physical explanation: pointing out the total recall experienced under hypnosis and “the extraordinary memories of the drowning and dying generally”, he argues that we never really forget anything, but rather are prevented from recalling it by the limitations of the brain.

The French philosopher Henri Bergson held similar ideas to those of Schiller, although it is unclear if he ever read Riddles of the Sphinx.
Bergson attempted to reconcile physical determinism with the apparent freedom of human behavior by proposing a theory of evolution whereby matter is crossed by creative consciousness: matter and consciousness interact, with both being elemental components of the universe, neither reducible to the other.

According to Bergson the brain canalizes and limits the mind, restricting its focus of attention and excluding factors irrelevant for the organism’s survival and propagation.
He assumed that memories have an extra-cerebral location, but that most are normally screened out for practical purposes, and in support of this, refers to near-death experiences in which the subjects’ entire life histories flashed before their eyes.

The brain is therefore both “the organ of attention to life” and an obstacle to wider awareness.
He speculates that if the brain is a limiting obstacle, filtering out forms of consciousness not necessary for the organism’s biological needs, then freedom from the body may well result in a more extended form of consciousness, which continues along its path of creative evolution.

In 1898 the American psychologist and philosopher William James delivered the Ingersoll Lecture.
At the start of the lecture he first remarks that “Every one knows that arrests of brain development occasion imbecility, that blows on the head abolish memory or consciousness, and that brain-stimulants and poisons change the quality of our ideas.”

He then makes the point that modern physiologists “have only shown this generally admitted fact of a dependence to be detailed and minute” in that “the various special forms of thinking are functions of special portions of the brain.”

James then explores the various possibilities for the exact type of functional dependence between the brain and consciousness.
It is normally thought of as productive, in the sense that steam is produced as a function of the kettle.

But this is not the only form of function that we find in nature: we also have at least two other forms of functional dependence: the permissive function, as found in the trigger of a crossbow; and the transmissive function, as of a lens or a prism.

The lens or prism do not produce the light but merely transmit it in a different form.
As James writes:
Similarly, the keys of an organ have only a transmissive function.
They open successively the various pipes and let the wind in the air-chest escape in various ways.

The voices of the various pipes are constituted by the columns of air trembling as they emerge.
But the air is not engendered in the organ.

The organ proper, as distinguished from its air-chest, is only an apparatus for letting portions of it loose upon the world in these peculiarly limited shapes.

My thesis now is this, that, when we think of the law that thought is a function of the brain, we are not required to think of productive function only; we are entitled also to consider permissive or transmissive function.
And this, the ordinary psychophysiologist leaves out of his account.

James then raises an objection to the transmissive theory of the body-mind relationship: yes, the transmission hypothesis may be a logical possibility, but isn’t it just unbridled speculation?

Isn’t the production hypothesis simpler?
Is it not more rigorously scientific to take the relationship between brain and mind to be one of production, not transmission?

But as James points out, from the standpoint of strictly empirical science, these objections carry no weight whatsoever.
Strictly speaking, the most we can ever observe is concomitant variation between states of the brain and states of mind — when brain activity changes in a certain way, then consciousness changes also.

The hypothesis of production, or of transmission, is something that we add to the observations of concomitant variation in order to account for it.
A scientist never observes states of the brain producing states of consciousness. Indeed, it is not even clear what we could possibly mean by observing such production.

And as for the objection that the transmission hypothesis is somehow fantastic, exactly the same objection can be raised against the production theory.
In the case of the production of steam by a kettle we have an easily understood model — of alterations of molecular motion — because the components that change are physically homogenous with each other.

But part of the reason the mind-body relationship has seemed so puzzling for so long is because mental and physical events seem so completely unlike each other.
This radical difference in their natures makes it exceedingly difficult to conceptualize the relationship between the two in terms of anything of which we are familiar.

It is partly for this reason that even though it has been more than a century since James delivered his lecture, in all that time neither psychology nor physiology has been able to produce any intelligible model of how biochemical processes could possibly be transformed into conscious experience.

It has been pointed out many times that there is no logical requirement that only “like can cause like” — or in other words, that only things of a similar nature can affect each other. But this consideration has not removed the mystery from the mind-body relationship.

As James wrote, the production of consciousness by the brain, if it does in fact occur, is “as far as our understanding goes, as great a miracle as if we said, thought is ‘spontaneously generated,’ or ‘created out of nothing.’”

The theory of production is therefore not a jot more simple or credible in itself than any other conceivable theory.
It is only a little more popular.

All that one need do, therefore, if the ordinary materialist should challenge one to explain how the brain can be an organ for limiting and determining to a certain form a consciousness elsewhere produced, is to ask him in turn to explain how it can be an organ for producing consciousness out of whole cloth.

For polemic purposes, the two theories are thus exactly on a par.
In short, James elaborated lines of reasoning laid out earlier by Schiller, and argued that the dependence of consciousness on the brain for the manner of its manifestation in the material world does not imply that consciousness depends upon the brain for its existence.

At the end of his book The Varieties of Religious Experience he admits to being impressed by the research of Myers and other members of the Society for Psychical Research, and concludes that the issue of survival is a case for the testimony of the facts to settle.

James wrote these works around the turn of the nineteenth century, but since then these arguments have been endorsed and developed by several more recent philosophers, neurologists, and psychologists, such as philosophers Curt Ducasse and David Lund, neurologist Gary Schwartz, and psychologist Cyril Burt.

The latter elegantly summarized the position set forth earlier by Schiller, Bergson, and James:

The brain is not an organ that generates consciousness, but rather an instrument evolved to transmit and limit the processes of consciousness and of conscious attention so as to restrict them to those aspects of the material environment which at any moment are crucial for the terrestrial success of the individual.

In that case such phenomena as telepathy and clairvoyance would be merely instances in which some of the limitations were removed.5

The argument in its essence is that the transmission and production hypotheses are equally compatible with the facts materialism tries to explain — such as the effects of senility, drugs, and brain damage on consciousness — but that the hypothesis of transmission has the advantage of providing a framework for understanding other phenomena — such as the Near Death Experience - that must remain utterly inexplicable by the hypothesis of materialism.

1 Fenwick & Fenwick, 1997, pp. 25-26.
2 Lamont, 1990, page 76.
3 Lamont, 1990, pages 86 - 108.
4 Schiller. F., 295.
5 Cyril Burt, 1975, p. 60.