The Neurosurgeon right around the 6 min mark is Dr. Shanno, whom I have worked with many times. That picture was taken consequently at the OR where I have worked the last 5 years.


Is Consciousness More than the Brain? | Interview with Dr. Gary Schwartz


[video=youtube;x-6hosFAObI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=x-6hosFAObI[/video]

We at The Thunderbolts Project think that no truly coherent cosmology can fail to address human consciousness.
As Wal Thornhill has written, "A real cosmology must be a broad and coherent natural philosophy.

It may always be incomplete, based on our limitations, but to be valid there can be no exceptions in our experience.
In particular, cosmology must address issues of life and the human condition.
Therefore it must be a truly interdisciplinary pursuit."


Today, perhaps the ultimate unsolved mystery of human life is: how and why does consciousness exist?
Although some scientific literature still acknowledges that the question remains open, the overwhelming consensus among neuroscientists today is that the brain alone creates conscious experience.

However, for decades, acclaimed scientists around the world have conducted research into consciousness that provides a very different picture.
One of the most remarkable of these researchers is Dr. Gary Schwartz, professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry and surgery at the University of Arizona and director of its Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health.
We asked Dr. Gary Schwartz for his thoughts on the mystery of consciousness.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism

[video=youtube;4C5pq7W5yRM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM[/video]

Materialism has been dead for decades now and recent research only reconfirms this and goes even further, as this video will show.
It ends with a brief introduction to the Cosmic Conscious Argument for God's existence.
 
Through the Wormhole - Is There a Sixth Sense?

[video=vimeo;26137313]http://vimeo.com/26137313[/video]

[video=vimeo;26318064]http://vimeo.com/26318064[/video]​
 
SSE Talks - Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness

Summary:
Features of quantum mechanics suggest that, rather than passively observing it, our minds create reality.

About the Author(s):
Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. He served as a scientific editor of the Astrophysical Journal for ten years, and was Principal Investigator on several NASA research projects. He is a past Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

[video=youtube;nttB3Wze3Y8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nttB3Wze3Y8[/video]

[video=youtube_share;Z31oGddiaCU]http://youtu.be/Z31oGddiaCU[/video]​

 

Continued...

[video=youtube_share;j3LGiZWhfVM]http://youtu.be/j3LGiZWhfVM[/video]

[video=youtube_share;z-VGhOYE770]http://youtu.be/z-VGhOYE770[/video]​
 
What strangeness is this?

Mystery Object Appears Near Milky Way's Monster Black Hole

g2-milky-way-black-hole-simulation.jpg


A computer simulation shows the G2 gas cloud's encounter with the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A* at the center of the Milky Way, as well as the paths of the many other objects that orbit the black hole.

A mystery object at the center of the galaxy has astronomers scratching their heads, and a new piece of information won't be solving the case before the New Year.
In yet another twist to a saga of astronomical proportions, astronomers have identified what they say is a gas cloud that made a tight orbit around the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy 13 years ago.

The object could be one in a series of gas clouds, the second of which may soon become a snack for the black hole.

The newly discovered object has been dubbed G1.

An object known as G2 has been in the news for more than a year, ever since astronomers at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Germany hypothesized that it was a gas cloud.

If that is true, it should lose some of its material to the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way (known as Sagittarius A* or Sgr A*).
This giant black hole – its name is pronounced Sagittarius A(star) – doesn't dine on material often, so the event would be a rare chance for astronomers to watch a black hole eat.

While the scientists at Max Planck contend that G2 is a gas cloud, a group of researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, led by astrophysicist Andrea Ghez, argue that G2 is more likely a star surrounded by a layer of dust and gas.

Over the summer, G2 made its closest approach to the black hole and was not torn apart.
Ghez and her group argued that this was a knockout punch for the gas cloud theory – clear evidence that G2 is a solid body.


g1-and-g2-orbits.jpg

Using a combination of simulation and high-resolution images, researchers at the Max Planck Institute concluded that the G1 object (blue) would have taken a path very similar to the G2 object (red) around the super massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy (marked with an "x").
Credit: Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics

But the researchers at the Max Planck institute countered with an explanation for how G2 could have remained intact even if it is a gas cloud.
Their theory incorporates the idea that G2 was once part of a larger gas cloud that subsequently broke up into smaller gas clouds that all follow the same path, like beads on a string.

This "beading" of gas has been observed in the universe before.
If additional clouds of gas could be identified following the same path as G2, that would strongly indicate that G2 is a gas cloud and not a star, the scientists say.

In their newest paper, the Max Planck group provides a computer model that retraces the path of G1.
According to their research, G1 followed a path nearly identical to G2.

The model does make certain assumptions about G1's motion – for example, that it decelerated near closest approach to the black hole.

"The good agreement of the model with the data renders the idea that G1 and G2 are part of the same gas streamer highly plausible," Stefan Gillessen, a co-author on the new research, said a statement.

The new study was first published on the online preprint journal arXiv.org and has been accepted to the Astrophysical Journal.
 
Too funny.


[video=youtube;bNZEfafbjSE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bNZEfafbjSE[/video]
 
The World’s Largest Clairvoyance Experiment Has Begun


the-worlds-largest-clairvoyance-experiment-has-begun-1226-body-image-1419622230.jpg

Hunter Lee Soik. Photo by the author

Icelanders call it Berdreymin—the ability to see the future in dreams.
On my travelscollecting dreams from around the world, clairvoyance has been one of the most persistent themes.

I've met Ukrainians in Donbass who report having dreamed about the war before it began, New Yorkers who recounted dreams of plane crashes and smoke-filled rooms on the morning of 9/11, and people across the globe who claim to have foreseen the deaths of loved ones.

Historically, there has never been a scientifically rigorous way to evaluate these experiences.
Still, clairvoyance and other forms of ESP have been taken seriously enough that both the KGB and CIA had extensive Cold War Era programs.

More recent experiments into the phenomena have yielded inconsistent results.
Skeptics commonly cite false-memory research to dismiss believers, while supporters often blame unfavorable results on unrealistic laboratory settings.

A new app called Shadow is poised to answer skeptics and believers alike.
The app records dreams (which you submit upon waking) and enters them into a massive database, allowing thousands of the time-stamped transcripts to be searched by keyword.

Clairvoyance could be identified through specific keyword spikes before major events.
While the app was first envisioned as an introspection tool for the Quantified Self Movement, it may end up finally answering a fundamental question about the nature of consciousness.

I met with Hunter Lee Soik, the 33-year-old visionary behind Shadow—a man seeking to predict the future by creating it.

VICE: What was your original goal for Shadow?

Hunter Lee Soik: The first goal was to just give people a mirror to look at their own subconscious data and say, "Oh, I didn't even realize it was doing that. I didn't even realize I was worried about these things."
The goal is to bring some of these subconscious issues into the conscious mind where they can be addressed.

How has that process played out for you?

Well, I was adopted, and I've gone through a lot of things. I know what pain feels like. I know what loss of identity feels like. I went through all of that, and I came out on the other side, and now everything is awesome. We all have that one thing we have to deal with, and it's not something that can be suppressed. When you suppress something, it always comes out in some weird way. You have to address it, get past it, and move on to the critical question of, "Why am I here?"

How did your issues show up in your dreams?

If we talk about that, some things will have to be off the record.

Is there a meaningful dream that you can talk about?

Well, in one, I died—well, I don't know if was really dead, but I had gone somewhere else. I had this glimpse of some sort of other world. And, when I woke up, I was sad because I had to come back.

What was the world like?

It was the most religious thing I've been through, without being really religious—more spiritual than religious. But it had all the underpinnings of the typical religious story. I had the feeling of tumbling, and felt like I was going into some sort of underground negative world. Then I remember coming back up on this conveyor belt and seeing light. [In the dream] I attached God to that concept, and made that the reality.

It's remarkable how often mystical concepts appear in dreams. When I first heard about Shadow, it struck me as a massive experiment about collective unconsciousness.


Could be. I mean, what happens if we can start looking at precognitive dreams, and say, "Oh there are actually correlations that are happening in real time." If we had this data back during 9/11, we could point to a time-stamped audio file describing the dream that predates the actual event. So, how could you then refute that kind of hard data? But, then what happens, when that reality becomes the reality? It's kind of like Schrodinger's Cat. What kind of loop happens there?

What have you found so far?

We have a very small user base right now of 9,000, so we don't have a large enough dataset. But there is something to be said about media content going into dream consciousness. I could be completely unaware of what's happening in the news, but I would know what the top trending things are because they come up in the dreams: ISIS, Ebola, Robin Williams.

What's your ultimate aim now for the app?

Ultimately, we want to use technology to make people more human. Dreams are a perfect way to start. The idea is, if someone can trust us with their dreams, then they're likely to trust us with other important aspects of their lives. And what I mean by that is if you walk 10,000 steps in a day, do you fall asleep faster? Do you record more positive dreams? Does the mattress you sleep on make a difference? Right now, technologies are providing a tremendous amount of service, but the business psychology is wrong. [Corporations are] on an ad-based revenue model, so they have a lot of data about you which they don't share with you. They can use it to manipulate you.

What's the alternative?

I think there's a sunrise on a new paradigm where we use data intelligently to help people live better and find better products.

And you're giving the data back to the people who generate it?

Absolutely. And you're helping people use the data to make connections. Who else is dreaming what you're dreaming, for example? I really believe a lot in quantum field mechanics. And I believe that a lot of the science jargon [means] simply: If you're happy, and you hang out with someone, you make them happy, and they make someone else happy. That's what I believe it's all about.

Follow Roc's latest project collecting dreams from around the globe at
World Dream Atlas.

 
Too funny.


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

Bahahahahahaha..... excellent!
 
Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism

[video=youtube;4C5pq7W5yRM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM[/video]

Materialism has been dead for decades now and recent research only reconfirms this and goes even further, as this video will show.
It ends with a brief introduction to the Cosmic Conscious Argument for God's existence.

*sigh*
Quantum physics is material stuff. It's not the kind of material most people are used to, but is is material. How do these people think quantum experiments are done?

Quantum stuff is very real, very physical and very material. In fact it is probably more so than the illusion which we see as reality. It is not a magic solution which lets people come up with a story to justify anything they want. It is about photons, electrons, and other bosons and fermions. Things which can be measured and detected with machines which is what gave us what we know about quantum physics through actual experiments in the first place.

It's about as material as one can get.

Edit:
Also they are just plain wrong and understanding things wrong.

Edit edit:
Additionally, to make a trivial proof that they are wrong, to make an observation during an experiment requires light, which is quantum in nature. In order to observe, the light must exist BEFORE you observe the instrumentation because it must travel from the light source to the instrument and then to your eye so effectively the light is 'observing' everything before you are and is in fact relaying the information to you. To not see this is incredibly short sighted and misinformed. If light - which is quantum - does not materially exist until you observe it then it is impossible for it to give you specific information.

Or better yet just tell these people to grab some high voltage lines because the electricity is not actually in the wires unless they observe it according to them.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]

Also how the hell does fiber optic work if nobody is watching it? How does your internet not shut off because all the photons and electrons escape the cables becuase when nobody is looking at them they're actually just probability waves which are in no specific place?

i.e. they are very wrong.
 
[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]

Moreover, if you think about it, the double slit experiment doesn't support their argument at all. Yes it does seem spooky that a particle can be several places at once and have an entangled counterpart, but it's not that spooky and doesn't allow for this strange magic they're trying to say it does.

Or look at it this way. Sure, when you fire a particle at the double slit, there's a probability wave that seems to say it can go through the left slit, right slit, both slits and no slits at the same time - but it's still going towards the slits. The particle is still confined within the apparatus so we can't say that it simply isn't material. It's like with a deck of cards. You know your card is in the deck - it could be anywhere in the deck but it is in the deck.

So just notice how even though it is a hazy physicality, the photon is still somehow governed by rules. When you fire it at the double slit its probability has a few distinct options which all have to do with the vicinity of the experiment, as opposed to say going to Alaska or Jupiter.
 
Last edited:
*sigh*
Quantum physics is material stuff. It's not the kind of material most people are used to, but is is material. How do these people think quantum experiments are done?

Quantum stuff is very real, very physical and very material. In fact it is probably more so than the illusion which we see as reality. It is not a magic solution which lets people come up with a story to justify anything they want. It is about photons, electrons, and other bosons and fermions. Things which can be measured and detected with machines which is what gave us what we know about quantum physics through actual experiments in the first place.

It's about as material as one can get.

Edit:
Also they are just plain wrong and understanding things wrong.

Edit edit:
Additionally, to make a trivial proof that they are wrong, to make an observation during an experiment requires light, which is quantum in nature. In order to observe, the light must exist BEFORE you observe the instrumentation because it must travel from the light source to the instrument and then to your eye so effectively the light is 'observing' everything before you are and is in fact relaying the information to you. To not see this is incredibly short sighted and misinformed. If light - which is quantum - does not materially exist until you observe it then it is impossible for it to give you specific information.

Or better yet just tell these people to grab some high voltage lines because the electricity is not actually in the wires unless they observe it according to them.

@Skarekrow

Also how the hell does fiber optic work if nobody is watching it? How does your internet not shut off because all the photons and electrons escape the cables becuase when nobody is looking at them they're actually just probability waves which are in no specific place?

i.e. they are very wrong.

@Skarekrow

Moreover, if you think about it, the double slit experiment doesn't support their argument at all. Yes it does seem spooky that a particle can be several places at once and have an entangled counterpart, but it's not that spooky and doesn't allow for this strange magic they're trying to say it does.

Or look at it this way. Sure, when you fire a particle at the double slit, there's a probability wave that seems to say it can go through the left slit, right slit, both slits and no slits at the same time - but it's still going towards the slits. The particle is still confined within the apparatus so we can't say that it simply isn't material. It's like with a deck of cards. You know your card is in the deck - it could be anywhere in the deck but it is in the deck.

So just notice how even though it is a hazy physicality, the photon is still somehow governed by rules. When you fire it at the double slit its probability has a few distinct options which all have to do with the vicinity of the experiment, as opposed to say going to Alaska or Jupiter.

It’s talking about the philosophical viewpoint that is “materialism”. Not that things have no material mass or is made of matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Newtonian physics follows materialism…and while for sure, our experience of what we see and come into contact with follows certain rules of nature (such as electrocuting yourself on a live wire)…people a whole lot more intelligent than me…people who are actual quantum physicists practicing at Universities…have still not tackled what is called the “hard problem” of consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness) because it starts to blur the line between a “materialist” view that the brain produces consciousness and we only have the illusion of free will built into the brain itself.

I happen to believe the post-materialist (http://www.opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science) view-point that says the brain is only the receiver of information either from the form of a “soul”, or by other connection like a "universal consciousness”, or across the holographic face of the universe.
I don’t happen to believe that when we aren’t looking at something it vanishes….that is solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism).

I happen to believe that there is either some kind of universal consciousness that we are all extensions of that is the grand observer of the universe and beyond that…I don’t think that our consciousness is a product of the mind. I know how you feel about the double-slit experiment…but the original experiment has been refined and done with multiple variations…but still, it’s like looking in the box for Schrodinger’s Cat…it’s all theoretical because we cannot observe the experiment without changing the outcome.
How much do you trust the theoretical physics is what is boils down to?
 
[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]

I don't know the first thing about how consciousness actually works so I'm not going to try and use science to say anything about it.

And yes I get that they're talking about the possibility consciousness beyond the material. My point is that they're incorrectly using material science to make their point to the extent that they might as well have not used the science at all.

So yeah I know they're talking about metaphysical ideas - that's not my problem with it. My problem with it is that they're using physical ideas to try and prove it, and getting it wrong all the while.

Edit:
And also Materialism according to Wikipedia is the concept that all things happen as a result of material interactions. So yes, with quantum physics we can propose the idea that your consciousness doesn't have to live inside your brain, but that is not necessarily a post materialist view because material interactions are not limited only to your brain - we have an entire rest of the universe full of matter which could still make a materialist philosophy viable and in fact more tenable.

Mind you that I'm not saying the mind is materialist - I'm saying that their propositions aren't actually post materialist because materialism doesn't have to be ONLY the idea that your consciousness is dictated solely by your brain.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]

Or to make a long story short - we can never actually confirm that something is not governed by material interactions.

Edit:
Also they seem to want the clout and perceived legitimacy of the sciences without very much of the sense-making of science. i.e. this is a disingenuous method of getting their views to be considered.
 
Last edited:
@Skarekrow

I don't know the first thing about how consciousness actually works so I'm not going to try and use science to say anything about it.

And yes I get that they're talking about the possibility consciousness beyond the material. My point is that they're incorrectly using material science to make their point to the extent that they might as well have not used the science at all.

So yeah I know they're talking about metaphysical ideas - that's not my problem with it. My problem with it is that they're using physical ideas to try and prove it, and getting it wrong all the while.

Edit:
And also Materialism according to Wikipedia is the concept that all things happen as a result of material interactions. So yes, with quantum physics we can propose the idea that your consciousness doesn't have to live inside your brain, but that is not necessarily a post materialist view because material interactions are not limited only to your brain - we have an entire rest of the universe full of matter which could still make a materialist philosophy viable and in fact more tenable.

Mind you that I'm not saying the mind is materialist - I'm saying that their propositions aren't actually post materialist because materialism doesn't have to be ONLY the idea that your consciousness is dictated solely by your brain.

@Skarekrow

Or to make a long story short - we can never actually confirm that something is not governed by material interactions.

Edit:
Also they seem to want the clout and perceived legitimacy of the sciences without very much of the sense-making of science. i.e. this is a disingenuous method of getting their views to be considered.

Actually a materialist scientist would not follow, and does not follow quantum theory.
It is the short-sighted view that what we see and perceive is actually what we see and perceive and we know that isn’t always the case.
A materialist also believes that the brain is the producer of consciousness or rather our consciousness is only a trick of the mind happening thousands of times per second (according to some theories).
I don’t know that we have a soul…the only way to find out for sure is to die…the rest is in the “taken with a grain of salt” category.
What I find interesting are the correlations of NDEs and the pattern to the experience…which, could be the last final illusion that the brain gives us.
I don’t really know, I have ideas that I like, ideas that make sense to me - maybe not so much for you…but everything is so subjective in this life…I was just listening to a story on NPR about a survey taker that would “prime” the person taking a survey….by having them hold a hot or cold cup of coffee for a second before they took the survey….they would ask “What is your gut feeling? Is Joe a good and warm guy?” and almost inevitably those with the warm “warm” coffee…”warm Joe.” the brain had trouble separating even just the concept presented in a different manner.
There is a good deal of good evidence with results that seem to suggest that there is something more going on than just - what you see is what you get.
I would ask that you give this list a chance if it is indeed scientific studies and material you seek - http://noetic.org/research/psi-research/
It’s a good jumping off point.

Also, there is no one more scientific than the PEARS Lab team and the Global Consciousness Project

What is disingenuous is for science to assume that there is nothing beyond what “materialist” science tells us there is - that consciousness is an illusion produced by the brain and there is nothing more when we die.

There is even theory now talking about how part of our consciousness may actually be traveling back in time or the part that could be considered a “soul” could actually be dark matter…I mean, the theories and ideas trying to explain our consciousness abound endlessly…like I said before, it comes down to a subjective amount of faith…they are all just ideas most of which are unprovable.
I only know from my own personal experiences that there is some weird shit taking place…and I’m not the only one.
Maybe they are all just undiscovered scientific facts…I find it interesting and continue to do so…so even if I cannot prove it to you or anyone else, I will continue to search because that is part of what I find fascinating.
Feel free to post any stories you find interesting Sprinkles, you know I always welcome outside stuff.
 
[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]

Quantum theory is used in a lot of electronics so I can't agree that a scientist or materialist does not follow it. A lot of non-scientists simply don't understand what quantum theory is and try to turn it into something it is not.

What you say might have been true 50 years ago but I'm sorry, we can't keep going by stuff that dead scientists said. This is now and a lot of experiments have come to understand how quantum physics works in a way of applied sciences. When these people stop using outdated info just because it is convenient for them, I might begin to take them seriously.

Edit:
Also they wouldn't have built the LHC and tried so hard to find the Higgs Boson and stuff if they didn't believe in quantum theory. Getting 10,000 scientists to collaborate on a particle accelerator which is 17 miles in circumference and buried 500 feet under ground is not a trivial task at all.
 
Last edited:
@Skarekrow

Quantum theory is used in a lot of electronics so I can't agree that a scientist or materialist does not follow it. A lot of non-scientists simply don't understand what quantum theory is and try to turn it into something it is not.

What you say might have been true 50 years ago but I'm sorry, we can't keep going by stuff that dead scientists said. This is now and a lot of experiments have come to understand how quantum physics works in a way of applied sciences. When these people stop using outdated info just because it is convenient for them, I might begin to take them seriously.

Edit:
Also they wouldn't have built the LHC and tried so hard to find the Higgs Boson and stuff if they didn't believe in quantum theory. Getting 10,000 scientists to collaborate on a particle accelerator which is 17 miles in circumference and buried 500 feet under ground is not a trivial task at all.
But the difference is taking that step into what would be the “faith” category.
But I feel…given time, that just like the Higgs particle that was just “discovered” we will “discover” certain ideas once thought crazy.
IMO we will find that our consciousness is fundamental to the universe just like a particle (or a wave hahaha) and we will “discover” some really fantastic shit.
But there is not sufficient proof out there to change the deep gouges that certain taboos have made.
 


The ‘chime child’ was born at a magic time of the night (the times varied but involved bells).
She or he had psychic abilities; think of it as a temporal version of the seventh son or the caul.

The idea of chime children has become an increasingly popular one in recent years.
Beach typed in ‘twenty-first’ century into Google Books with ‘chime child’ and immediately came up with, for the last decade, some glitzy looking volumes: Levinson, Dreams of the Road; Slater, Skinned; Garfield, Empty Sleeve; Billingsley, The Chime Child; Billingsley, Chime; and Storey, Almost a Chime Child.

Soon an American TV channel will have a hero on one of their supernatural shows announce ostentatiously: ‘I popped out of Mom while the bells were ringing’.
Silence will fall in the rural Kentucky bar and five or six stand-bys will say ‘a chime child!’

But waiting for the meme to germinate let’s ask the historian’s question: where on earth does the ‘chime child’ come from?

The answer to this question is simple, at least for the twenty-first century: Ruth Tongue (obit 19 Sept 1981).

Ruth Tongue was a British folklorist who claimed that much of her special knowledge of Somerset folklore came from the fact that she was a ‘Chime Child’.

RT didn’t stress the psychic side of the formula, though a careful reading of her works shows that she believed she had psychic gifts.
She claimed, instead, that as a child she was trusted by rural types in Somerset because she was born at the right time: in her case between midnight on Friday and cock-crow on Saturday. ‘Many strange doors were open to Ruth… and the country folk spoke openly to Ruth of their secret lore.’

The problem was that Ruth Tongue proved to be the Baron Munchausen of British folklore, making up much of the traditions she peddled.
She was, incidentally, a natural and gifted story-teller: she could have had far more success using her God-given talents as they were intended. Oh Ruth!

The modern idea of a chime child, in any case, began with RT’s claims.
In 1968 she even published a book with Chime Child in the title: The Chime Child or Somerset Singers.

Almost all modern examples trace back to her work in the 1960s and the 1970s and the myths that she wound around herself.
But some folklorists have suggested that Ruth Tongue made up not only the tales and songs she passed on, but also the very tradition of the chime child.

As it happens Ruth very possibly told fibs about being born early on a Saturday morning.
But the chime child needs to be saved from the refuse of her life’s work: one of the problems when fantasists are let loose in a discipline is not just the lies they introduce but the truths they tar through association.

There follows a brief history of the chime child as it appeared in nineteenth-century records.

One text that demonstrates that there was a Somerset tradition, along the lines suggested by RT, appeared long before her father was a glimmer in her grandmother’s eye.

‘Chime hours,’ ‘A child bom in chime-hours will have the power to see spirits.’

This was reported in J. Westby Gibson, Notes and Queries 7 (1853), 152 and ascribed to ‘a Somerset Friend’.
However, there are other proofs that there was an idea of this kind in the nineteenth-century air and possibly for many centuries previously.

In the North of England it is believed that children born during the hour after midnight have the power through life of seeing the spirits of the departed. In the Eastern district [Norfolk], however, this faculty of seeing much that is hidden from others is given to children born at the ‘chime hours,’ i.e., the hours of three, six, nine, or twelve. (Glyde, Norfolk Garland, 1872)

The idea seems to have been well-established in East Anglia, in fact. This one is from Suffolk.
Babies born during ‘chime hours’ have the faculty of seeing spirits and cannot be bewitched.

The chime hours are three, six, nine, and twelve, though an old nurse of the writer’s acquaintance stated them as four, eight, and twelve. Gurdon,County Folklore Suffolk, 1893 p. 11

This one is from ‘the Broads’ in Norfolk: it is written in a comic vein but…

I ain’t no more superstitious than other folks, but yew don’t perhaps know that old X wuz born in chime hours; he is the seventh son of a seventh son, and if that don’t constitoot a ‘wise man,’ then there never wuz one.
Suffling, The Innocents on the Broads, 1901, 187

This one relates to the Midlands and North

Children who are born during the ‘chime hours’ of a parish church clock, that is, at the hours when musical tunes are chimed, have the power to see spirits. Oldall Addy, Household Tales, 1895, 119

This one is from Lean’s Collectanea. ‘Bray’ is presumably The Borders, but Beach knows that book well and has never seen this sentence.

A child born at midnight, or in the chime hours, will be ghost-free all its life. – (Devon) Bray.

Even though terms change the idea remains: this is from Scotland:

The child born [in Sutherlandshire] at midnight will grow up to ‘see things’ hidden from others – to have, in short, the gift of second sight. Gun and Mackay, Sutherland (1897), 117

And lest there is any doubt that these are obscure beliefs being peddled by incorrigably rural sorts this comes from a novel by the name of David Copperfield

In consideration of the day and hour of my birth, it was declared by the nurse and by some sage woman in the neighbourhood who had taken a lively interest in me several months before there was any possibility of our becoming personally acquainted, first, that I was destined to be unlucky in life, and, secondly, that I was privileged to see ghosts and spirits ; both these gifts inevitably attaching, as they believed, to all unlucky infants of either gender born towards the small hours of a Friday night.

Interstingly though Joseph Wright missed the term in his Dialect Dictionary, only writing it up afterwards in his additions.
There seem to be several points of debate.

First, where do these traditions occur?
On the basis of this all of England save perhaps the west Midlands and the South East were implicated.

Second, what are the chime hours?
As can be seen with the times there is great variation, the charming ecumenism of folk belief.

Still it would be fun to know the range.
Personally, Beach is a purist and believes that only babies that come out on the chimes of midnight should have bells ringing from them.

By Ruth Tongue’s rather broad definition one in fourteen people are chime children, not exactly an exclusive club.

Third, what did membership of the club get you?

RT claimed musical abilities, some others claim psychic abilities, and some an absence of ghost sightings (the opposite to psychic ability then?).

Fourth, it would be nice to find some twentieth-century reference prior to the RT revolution.

Fifth, are there other terms?
Note the reason a lot of these references has not been turned up before is because we follow RT’s ‘Chime Child’ (her coining?), whereas the preferred nineteenth-century term is a child ‘born in the chime hours’.

Finally, Beach should note that there are a wide range of references in Notes and Queries that he can’t get at because they are behind an unpayable pay wall.

The few he has glimpsed seem to be about the nature of bell ringing.
This post is published, then, with historian’s guilt.

3 Jan 2015: Chris from Haunted Ohio Books: ‘Reinforcing the broad nature of the “chime hours”:’
Children born at precisely 12 midnight are supposed to be endowed with occult powers.

So, too, are those born at the “chime hours”—i.e. 3, 6 and 9.’Pearson’s Weekly 1905.
Southern Man, meanwhile, has found this reference on the Holborn ghost and ‘the chime hours':



T’le neighbourhood of St. Andrew’s Church, Holborn, has of late been annoyed by a nightly assemblage persons collected on the steps leading to the church, drawn there hy a report that the church-yard was regularly visited a ghost in the form of a female, every evening at the chime hours of nine and twelve.

The spectre was said to make itsappearance on the steps of the church porch, perambulate the church-yard three times;, and after playing off various vagaries, to take its flight over the heads of the spectators, over Ely-place.

The first night of its appearance was Tuesday last, when it frightened the horses of two drays, which were pa-sing, and caused them to run away: since which time the spirits of some of its attendants have mingled wiih the crowd, and insinuated themselves into the pockets of several of those who had been foolish enough to suffer themselves to attracted to the spot, by the reported appearance of a supernatural visitant.

The Officers of the Police have, however, very properly turned their attention to the subject, and were attendance during the evenings of Friday and Saturday.
 
Return of the fairy-hunters

An eccentric English tradition acquires some new academic firepower

2635890.jpg


If like me you get all your news from the Cornish Guardian, you may have spotted an article announcing that the Fairy Investigation Society is conducting a survey.

They’re seeking information from anyone who has seen any pixies, elves or sprites — all on a strictly anonymous basis.

I rang the man behind the research and he told me that in just three months, he’s had over 400 replies.
An example: ‘I was walking down a field in Scotland when I noticed a winged being leaning up against the side of a sycamore tree.

He was as tall as the trunk, maybe 15 feet.’

You might laugh it off, but the man was deadly serious — as are his informants.

Well into the 21st century, beneath the radar of a popular culture obsessed with vampires and aliens, elements of traditional British folklore have inexplicably survived.

A century ago, discussion of the little folk was quite common.
The Fairy Investigation Society was founded in 1927 by a group of spiritualists and, legend would have it, attracted such illustrious members as Walt Disney.

Its true believers were delightful eccentrics of a very English stripe.
Marjorie Johnson, eventually secretary of the society, encountered an elf in her bedroom as a child and grew up to be a committed fairy-hunter.

In the post-war years, she assembled a remarkable archive of sightings — including a family of gnomes in Wollaton Park who were observed driving about in small racing cars.

Miss Johnson intended to publish her magnum opus but was undone by some unguarded comments to a tabloid. ‘It has taken me years of study to win their friendship and discover the secrets of their sex life,’ she told the Sunday Pictorial. ‘But anyone who is admitted to the circle of fairy friendship is very fortunate. Through billions of years fairies have learned the secrets of universal love.’

It is thought that this tabloid scandal encouraged this sweet lady to retire from public life, and her fellow fairy-hunters to retreat into the closet.
What little research took place thereafter gained scant attention.

We owe much of what we know about Hikey Sprites thanks to the dedicated investigations of one Ray Loveday, who travelled East Anglia asking strangers at bus stops if they had ever seen any.

A reviewer of his excellent pamphlet, The Hikey Sprites: the Twilight of a Norfolk Tradition notes that Mr Loveday’s research was sadly restricted by the limitations of the local bus route.


3322226.jpg

Walt Disney was a member of The Fairy Investigation Society Photo: Getty

Though Britain stopped openly talking about fairies, faith in them remained.
Dr Simon Young, the academic conducting the fairy survey, says that sightings still occur even though the look of fairies changes according to popular tastes.

Until the Victorian era fairies were flightless and often regarded as amoral — even mischievous.
Indeed, when I told a Catholic academic friend about the Fairy Investigation Society he insisted that fairies were demonic. ‘The best thing you could do if you encounter a fairy is step on it,’ he said, ‘or lay down slug pellets.’

Since Disney began to do PR for fairies, a significant number of sightings feature creatures who bring a sense of peace; however, there are also reports of gnomes, a walking tree and ‘a group of creatures, maybe 25cm tall, humanoid, hairless, with spindly limbs and slightly shiny leathery skin’ that ‘wore nothing but Oxford commoners’ gowns (no mortarboards)’.

The best encounter is that of a teenager camping on the moors who went behind his tent to relieve himself only to discover that he was not alone: ‘when I looked down [there] appeared silhouetted a small shape with his hands on his hips, I could see it by a faint light coming through a large hole behind him in the hedgerow. I got the impression of someone very angry. This scared me and needless to say I could not do what I intended. Slowly backing away I quickly apologised (sincerely believed I had almost pissed on a wee folk).’

Are some of these stories are tongue-in-cheek?
Maybe.

Nevertheless, there’s charming sincerity to many of the tales and to the work of Dr Young in general. ‘I don’t know what’s going on,’ he told me. ‘But perhaps it indicates in part that the countryside has a presence.’
I think he’s right.

I very much doubt that hedgerows are home to thousands of magical creatures, but it’s true that the countryside is magical and that the British relationship to it goes well beyond the physical and into the spiritual — which is why should preserve it as passionately as the fairy-hunters seek to preserve our folklore.

 
Back
Top