Merkabah

[Kgal]

See William Butler Yeats's
Magical Golden Dawn Tools and Private Journals


​

Irish poet William Butler Yeats is perhaps the most well-known member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, the influential secret magical society which originated in the late 19th century (and still exists in a number of forms today).

Yeats was initiated into the order in 1890, taking on the magical name Demon est Deus Inversus–"the Devil is God Inverted."
As the order fell into chaos in the early 20th century, Yeats struggled to keep it intact, but he eventually left the offshoot Stella Matutina temple in 1921.

In 2009, noted Tarot author and scholar Mary K. Greer blogged about an exhibit at the National Library of Ireland showcasing a number of Yeats's Golden Dawn tools and writings, including pages from his private magical journal.

The exhibition is still online and I encourage you to view it here (although it is build in Flash and employs a clunky navigation system). Navigate to "Interactive" then click on "The Celtic Mystic" to see the showcase.

I also recently acquired a copy of the out-of-print and rare book, Yeats, the Tarot, and the Golden Dawn by scholar Kathleen Raine (The Dolmen Press, 1972), and was astonished to find it contained several black-and-white photos of Yeats's hand-crafted elemental weapons (magical tools).

​

In the above image, clockwise from top left, are: the chalice (representing the element of Water); dagger (representing the element of Air) and lotus want (a general "all-purpose" wand); magical sword and sheath; and the Fire Wand.

Another photo, this one from the National Library of Irelands exhibit, shows Yeats's hand-constructed and painted Pentacle, which represents the element of Earth.

You can see his magical motto, Demon est Deus Inversus, painted on the pentacle.
All of the magical tools are inscribed with Hebrew names of angels, and some (noticeably the cup) feature the sigils constructed from their names (the odd geometrical figures). This image comes from the collection at the National Library of Ireland:

​

It is still quite thrilling to see Yeats's drawings in the notebook illustrating his progression through the grades of the order.

Here, he has sketched and painted the angel Michael Auriel.
[An earlier version of this article stated the angel was the Archangel Michael, but someone on a Golden Dawn forum caught the mistake.]

​

And a beautiful gallery of pages from a Golden Dawn notebook from Yeats's uncle, George Pollexfen, can be found on Flckr, too.

The full story of Yeats and his involvement with magic and the Golden Dawn is covered in a number of books and online, but seeing these magical tools and drawings–carefully constructed and painted by the great poet himself–really brings the tradition alive.

[MENTION=3379]Free Mind[/MENTION] might want to take a look at this.

 

[Skarekrow]

The Afterlife Dysfunction

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

Theoretical physicist Frederik Van Der Veken about The Afterlife Dysfunction:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceDWeW...
music by Raxxroth: http://www.youtube.com/Raxxroth / http://www.soundcloud.com/Raxxroth (much thanks to him for his amazing music)
(video also features 'A Brand New Model' at 5:40 from Proud Music)

Download it in 1080p: http://netkups.com/?d=0f801755c5171

Scientific background on The Afterlife Dysfunction, such as similar theories and thought experiments proposed in popular interpretations of quantum mechanics:
Quantum suicide and immortality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_...
Biocentrism (cosmology): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentr...
Anthropic principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropi...
Capgras Syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capgras_...
Split-brain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_brain
The Many Worlds Interpretation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-wor...
The Copenhagen Interpretation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhag...
Time Dilation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dil...
The Blue Brain Project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Bra...
Quantum Tunneling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_...
CP Violation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cp_Viola...
The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_...​

 

[Skarekrow]

THE AFTERLIFE INVESTIGATIONS:
The Scole Experiments

[video=youtube_share;6qSEi_sfaSU]http://youtu.be/6qSEi_sfaSU[/video]

Breakthrough scientific evidence for the afterlife.
The Scole Experiments.

For five years a group of mediums and scientists witnessed more phenomena than in any other experiment in the history of the paranormal, including recorded conversations with the dead, written messages on sealed film, video of spirit faces and even spirit forms materializing.
These experiments may finally convince you there is life after death.

The scientific team in change of overseeing these experiments include world renowned Cambridge Scientist - Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Dr. David Fontana and Researcher Montague Keen who died during the filming of the documentary.​

 

[Sensiko]

It's pretty obvious who you were in your last past life [MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]!
[video=youtube;8S3Yt-NxY0E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S3Yt-NxY0E&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

 

[Skarekrow]

It's pretty obvious who you were in your last past life @Skarekrow!
[video=youtube;8S3Yt-NxY0E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S3Yt-NxY0E&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

Obviously!!

 

[Skarekrow]

“A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight,
and his punishment is he sees the dawn before the rest of world.”
- Oscar Wilde​

 

[ThomasJ79]

[video=youtube;w8kyfhABWug]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8kyfhABWug[/video]

 

[sprinkles]

[video=youtube;DGsQW1s9F7A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGsQW1s9F7A[/video]

 

[Skarekrow]

I would be curious to know if the time my Father spent in the Vietnam war has negatively effected me in certain ways…I know that he actually had to choke someone to death with his bare hands…I can’t even imagine doing such a thing, but it was kill or be killed.
Hmmmm...

Phobias may be memories passed down in genes from ancestors

Memories may be passed down through generations in DNA in a process that may be the underlying cause of phobias

Memories can be passed down to later generations through genetic switches that allow offspring to inherit the experience of their ancestors, according to new research that may explain how phobias can develop.

Scientists have long assumed that memories and learned experiences built up during a lifetime must be passed on by teaching later generations or through personal experience.

However, new research has shown that it is possible for some information to be inherited biologically through chemical changes that occur in DNA.

Researchers at the Emory University School of Medicine, in Atlanta, found that mice can pass on learned information about traumatic or stressful experiences — in this case a fear of the smell of cherry blossom — to subsequent generations.

The results may help to explain why people suffer from seemingly irrational phobias — it may be based on the inherited experiences of their ancestors.

So a fear of spiders may in fact be an inherited defence mechanism laid down in a families genes by an ancestors' frightening encounter with an arachnid.
Dr Brian Dias, from the department of psychiatry at Emory University, said: "We have begun to explore an underappreciated influence on adult behaviour — ancestral experience before conception.

"From a translational perspective, our results allow us to appreciate how the experiences of a parent, before even conceiving offspring, markedly influence both structure and function in the nervous system of subsequent generations.

"Such a phenomenon may contribute to the etiology and potential intergenerational transmission of risk for neuropsychiatric disorders such as phobias, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder."

In the study, which is published in the journal of Nature Neuroscience, the researchers trained mice to fear the smell of cherry blossom using electric shocks before allowing them to breed.

The offspring produced showed fearful responses to the odour of cherry blossom compared to a neutral odour, despite never having encountered them before.
The following generation also showed the same behavior.

This effect continued even if the mice had been fathered through artificial insemination.
The researchers found the brains of the trained mice and their offspring showed structural changes in areas used to detect the odour.

The DNA of the animals also carried chemical changes, known as epigenetic methylation, on the gene responsible for detecting the odour.
This suggests that experiences are somehow transferred from the brain into the genome, allowing them to be passed on to later generations.

The researchers now hope to carry out further work to understand how the information comes to be stored on the DNA in the first place.
They also want to explore whether similar effects can be seen in the genes of humans.

Professor Marcus Pembrey, a paediatric geneticist at University College London, said the work provided "compelling evidence" for the biological transmission of memory.

He added: "It addresses constitutional fearfulness that is highly relevant to phobias, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders, plus the controversial subject of transmission of the ‘memory’ of ancestral experience down the generations.

"It is high time public health researchers took human transgenerational responses seriously.
"I suspect we will not understand the rise in neuropsychiatric disorders or obesity, diabetes and metabolic disruptions generally without taking a multigenerational approach.”

Professor Wolf Reik, head of epigenetics at the Babraham Institute in Cambridge, said, however, further work was needed before such results could be applied to humans.

He said: "These types of results are encouraging as they suggest that transgenerational inheritance exists and is mediated by epigenetics, but more careful mechanistic study of animal models is needed before extrapolating such findings to humans.”

It comes as another study in mice has shown that their ability to remember can be effected by the presence of immune system factors in their mother's milk
Dr Miklos Toth, from Weill Cornell Medical College, found that chemokines carried in a mother's milk caused changes in the brains of their offspring, affecting their memory in later life.

 

[Skarekrow]

This effect continued even if the mice had been fathered through artificial insemination.

Just wanted to highlight this part of the article because the mental image of some lowly lab assistant jacking off mice made me laugh…poor guy/gal…how does one???

 

[Skarekrow]

Hard to Kill: Rasputin and Other Immortals

​

The human body is a pretty fragile thing, when you think about it.
Maybe not as fragile as movie makers try to make it seem, but still far less durable than a lot of other life forms on this planet.

In the movies they’d have you believe that, at least for nameless bad guys, you can be killed instantly with a good swift kick to the shin.
But if you’re a hero (or anti-hero), you can brush off even nuclear blasts with little more than an endearing scratch or two.

Real life, of course, isn’t like that.
Introducing foreign bodies into your own, especially of the pointy variety, is decidedly unadvised.

It’s generally a good idea to avoid the business end of guns, and most will tell you that knives do not belong in your belly (or your back, but that’s another article).
The average person holds about five litres of blood, or one and a half gallons.

It’s roughly 7% of your body weight, so the bigger you are, the more red stuff you carry.
Of course, if you spring a leak you have a problem.

That same average person can, in theory, easily survive a loss of blood ranging from 10-15% of capacity (or about half a litre), but beyond that, things get dicey.
Contrary to popular belief though, having a bullet rip through your innards isn’t strictly fatal.

It’s actually the blood loss that results from all the holes that will kill you.
Yes, there are some other things going on when you’ve been perforated, but as the spunky female supporting character will always tell you, you’ve got to stop the bleeding.

​

Though, you realise that this is all based on a best case scenario, right?
Well, maybe not best case, you’ve just been shot, after all.

The point is, there are lots of people who defy the odds of survival; people who not only laugh in the face of death, they pretty much give it the full-monty.Perhaps the most famous and bewildering tale of such defiant survival is that of Grigori Yefimovich Rasputin.

His story is widely misrepresented, however.
Rasputin, as I’m sure you’re familiar, was something of a sensation in Russia at the turn of the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century.

A most controversial figure, he was said to be one of the most powerful faith healers ever to have lived, he was (depending on who you ask) an occultist extraordinaire, and was certainly a most influential spiritual guru of the time.

And above all, he was a trusted advisor to the Tsars, and, according to historians, was the primary catalyst for the fall of the Russian Monarchy.
Whole volumes have been written on who Rasputin was, how he lived, and how he died. Strange as he was, and despite what certain films would have you believe, he was definitely mortal.

Though he certainly held tight his grasp on this world when royalty conspired to send him on.
You’ve probably heard the condensed version of the tale; he was poisoned, shot, beaten, and finally drowned at a dinner party in his honour.

Though, lest you get the wrong idea, this was not just how they partied in Russia at the time.
No, it was Rasputin’s benefactors — who had grown tired of his meddling in political affairs — who decided to put an end to his influence.

Rasputin’s friend (or so he thought) Felix Yusopov invited the mystic to a late-night social gathering.
To spare you the minutia of detail, much of which is in question, what is known is that Rasputin had been served wine and pastries laced with cyanide.

Most accounts agree that he reluctantly imbibed copious amounts of the poisoned wine, though he may or may not have eaten the tainted pastries.
Though, for whatever reason, he did not succumb to the toxin, except by way of becoming quite drunk.

Desperation set in and either Yusopov himself, or another conspirator — perhaps Dimitri Romanov — attempted a much more overt act to dispatch the holy man.
Rasputin was shot in the left side of his abdomen (some tellings claim he was shot in the back) and he fell to the floor, apparently lifeless.

Thinking they had succeeded, the conspirators made haste to dispose of Rasputin’s belongings, and later returned to remove his body, whereupon they found him still very much alive, and attempting escape by crawling up a flight of stairs to the courtyard.

Well, this simply would not do, so fellow conspirator Vladimir Purishkevich again tried to shoot him, missing twice and then finding his mark in Rasputin’s back as he fled.
He took a final round to the head, in what one can only imagine would have been an Oscar-worthy scene, and fell to the snow.

Yusopov, who apparently had been moved to madness by the evening’s events, then set upon him with a truncheon, beating him about the head and body until he was finally pulled away.

Wouldn’t you know it though, but Rasputin was still alive.

​

Having had enough of this unending assassination, his murderers wrapped him in a carpet and dumped him into the nearby Nina River.
Much to the surprise of authorities though, when the body was dredged from the river some days later, there were signs he had yet been alive and had injured his hands trying to break through the ice from the underside.

An unbelievable tale, for sure, but as mentioned, his wounds alone could have been survivable, at least in the short term.
Whether he had some immunity to cyanide, or perhaps his hosts administered it incompetently, any single event he suffered that night could not conclusively be deemed fatal on its own.

Mostly because none were, until he drowned.
But he’s not the only person to have survived grievous injury at the hands of an attacker.

Jumping back into the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century, on May 27, 1988, a Suffolk Country, New York police officer named Kenyon Tuthill was ambushed by a crazed man with a shotgun while he sat in his patrol car.

Tuthill took a point-blank shotgun blast to the face, which, as you might imagine, removed not only most of his face, but nearly 30% of his head.
Anyone reading this would be right to assume that Officer Tuthill’s life ended that night, but what if I told you that he never even lost consciousness?

His attacker fled immediately following the shot, likely assuming the officer dead, but Tuthill was still very much alive.
The officer called for help over his CB radio, though with most of his mouth gone, he managed only garbled moans.

He underwent nine hours of surgery to save his life that day and his attacker was eventually apprehended and was ultimately sentenced to life in prison.
Officer Keyon Tuthill survived what no one thought was possible; since then he has gone through more than 17 facial reconstruction surgeries, and was a featured story in the documentary Ultimate Survivors: Winning Against Incredible Odds (1991) starring William Shatner.

These two stories from what seem like opposite sides of history, sit in stark contrast to our news headlines.
People are killed so often, and sometimes in such seemingly benign ways, and almost always for no good reason.

Our bodies are subject to assaults on every level, and at a glance it seems there’s no logic involved in who lives and who dies.
Rasputin’s story typically incites talk of magic, and sorcery, and alchemy, but when a regular guy like Officer Tuthill can survive such massive injury through sheer will, magic seems unnecessary.

One thing is certain though, of all the ways a life can be destroyed, killing each other is the worst.

 

[Skarekrow]

Left or Right?
Either Way I’m Lost

​

It’s been quite a while since I’ve brought you something truly complex.
A mind-bending subject that many simply won’t understand.

I don’t fully understand it, but I’m going to try to explain it here, so I can get these puzzles out of my head.
Do you know what noumenon is?

Chris Savia discussed it briefly in his recent debut post here.
Neoumenon is a philosophical term, it represents the intangibility of thought.

More specifically, it is the term used by philosophers to refer to knowledge that is independent of the senses.
It is the marker for a boundary.

A boundary between what is real and what is imaginary.

Think of it this way: what is a number?
Let’s just use the number six for convenience’s sake.

What is the number six?
It’s a word with three letters.

It’s a numerical digit — 6.
It’s a component of a mathematical system.

How can you experience six?
Well, you can have six flowers, or six dogs, or six sports cars (lucky you).

That’s experiencing six, right?
Not really.

How about little plastic fridge magnets in the shape of the numerical digit six?
Nope.

What if I add three and three together?
That’s six.

No, sorry, that’s still just experiencing the materialist representation of six; that is the phenomenon of six.
The number six doesn’t actually exist.

You can’t perceive it on its own.
It has to be represented through language or a physical representation via unrelated items.

It doesn’t matter what you call it either.
Whether you use Italian, German, Chinese, or whatever language they speak on Tau Alpha C.

Numbers aren’t the only inhabitants of the noumenal world though.
What about left and right?

Are they real phenomenon, something that can be experienced tangibly?
Great question!

Using the same logic as above, it would seem that left and/or right don’t actually exist.
You can talk about left, you can point in the direction of left, you can even describe where left is in relation to other objects, but you can’t actually experience left.

​

Principle of Wu experiment 1956 to detect parity violation in nuclear beta decay

​

Moreover, you can’t distinguish between right and left without invoking another phenomenon to explain it.
Think about it.

Tell me how right is different from left without discussing reference points and physical relationships.
You could say that right is the opposite of left, but you haven’t told me how they’re different, even though they are.

I told you this would be complicated.

One of the things that makes this particular point so difficult to grasp is that left and right seem to be universal.
When you stand in front of a mirror, your left is still your left, and to your mirror image, its left is still its left — only reversed from your perspective because it’s a mirror.

In 1927, theoretical physicist Eugene Wigner formalised a concept known as the conservation of parity (P-conservation), which in simple terms means that the current world and one built like its mirror image would behave in the same way, with the only difference that left and right would be reversed, just like above.

It was thought, for a long time, that P-conservation was a fundamental law of the universe, an immutable symmetry.
It made sense.

You should know by now though, that physics rarely makes sense.

Then in 1956 another physicist named Chien-Shiung Wu came along and threw a really big wrench into these monkey-works.
Wu undertook what is now known as the Wu Experiment, whereby she tested whether P-conservation could be violated.

And it turns out, it can in special circumstances.
Meaning that parity is not a symmetry in our universe.

Wu monitored the decay of cobalt-60 atoms and measured the direction of the resulting gamma ray burst as compared to the direction of emitted electrons.[1]
If the electrons were always emitted in the same direction and proportion as the gamma photons, then P-conservation would be true.

However, what she found was that, not only were the two mismatched in direction, but the electrons favoured a trajectory in the opposite direction to the nuclear spin of the atom.
I know…what the hell does all that mean?

Top: P-symmetry: A clock built like its mirrored image will behave like the mirrored image of the original clock.
Bottom: P-asymmetry: A clock built like its mirrored image will not behave like the mirrored image of the original clock.

​

Basically, at the atomic level, the mirror image of the atom decaying didn’t behave the same as the original atom.
This is now known as P-violation or chirality.

So what does that have to do with right and left being real?
The words right and left, as discussed, are simply placeholders for a noumenal concept.

The actual idea of left and right remains something you can’t experience directly.
Except, the Wu Experiment showed that atoms (which you and I, and, well everything, are made of) can directly experience them.

Their particles can become them, and doesn’t that, actually, make them a real phenomenon and not just a noumenal concept?
Incidentally, the quantum particles that participate in P-violation — left-handed neutrinos and right-handed antineutrinos — are thought to have mirror image counterparts.

In theory, if such particles do exist, and because of the way they would interact with each other, some physicists believe they might be a fundamental part of antimatter.
Which might just back me up on this.

I’m going to be the first to say it though; this is nuts.
These concepts and ideas are still over my head, though sometimes I do feel like I can almost reach the very basis of the theory.

Does it really matter if right and left are noumenal?
Probably not.

Does P-violation have any impact whatsoever on our daily lives?
Not that I can see.

I’ve struggled with this enigma for several months now, and while some of you might be thinking that I have too much time on my hands (I do), these are just the things I think about.

Welcome to my nightmare.


[1] Cobalt-60 (60Co) is an unstable isotope of cobalt that decays by beta decay to the stable isotope nickel-60 (60Ni). During this decay, one of the neutrons in the cobalt-60 nucleus decays to a proton by emitting an electron (e−) and an electron antineutrino (νe). This changes the cobalt-60 nucleus into a nickel-60 nucleus. The resulting nickel nucleus, however, is in an excited state and promptly decays to its ground state by emitting two gamma rays (γ).

​

 

[apemon]

All I've got is this - - if it's a concept at all does it have any reality beyond thought anyway?

 

[Skarekrow]

All I've got is this - - if it's a concept at all does it have any reality beyond thought anyway?

That’s the million dollar question I guess.

I’ve posted this before and I just linked it in another thread for someone…but this is about the closest thing to what I consider to be true.
Anyhow, this is the manifesto for a post-materialist science.
I’m sure most if not all of the people on the list who have supported this train of though are far more intelligent (at least in schooling) than I am.
This just makes the most sense to me…yes, it has it’s flaws and unanswered questions…but I think it is starting to ask the right questions.

Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science


Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science (PDF)

International Summit on Post-Materialist Science: Summary Report (PDF)

Also see: 100 Notable Scientists Call for Open Study of Consciousness
​

We are a group of internationally known scientists, from a variety of scientific fields (biology, neuroscience, psychology, medicine, psychiatry), who participated in an international summit on post-materialist science, spirituality and society. The summit was co-organized by Gary E. Schwartz, PhD and Mario Beauregard, PhD, the University of Arizona, and Lisa Miller, PhD, Columbia University. This summit was held at Canyon Ranch in Tucson, Arizona, on February 7-9, 2014. Our purpose was to discuss the impact of the materialist ideology on science and the emergence of a post-materialist paradigm for science, spirituality, and society. We have come to the following conclusions:

1. The modern scientific worldview is predominantly predicated on assumptions that are closely associated with classical physics. Materialism–the idea that matter is the only reality–is one of these assumptions. A related assumption is reductionism, the notion that complex things can be understood by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things such as tiny material particles.

2. During the 19th century, these assumptions narrowed, turned into dogmas, and coalesced into an ideological belief system that came to be known as "scientific materialism." This belief system implies that the mind is nothing but the physical activity of the brain, and that our thoughts cannot have any effect upon our brains and bodies, our actions, and the physical world.

3. The ideology of scientific materialism became dominant in academia during the 20th century. So dominant that a majority of scientists started to believe that it was based on established empirical evidence, and represented the only rational view of the world.

4. Scientific methods based upon materialistic philosophy have been highly successful in not only increasing our understanding of nature but also in bringing greater control and freedom through advances in technology.

5. However, the nearly absolute dominance of materialism in the academic world has seriously constricted the sciences and hampered the development of the scientific study of mind and spirituality. Faith in this ideology, as an exclusive explanatory framework for reality, has compelled scientists to neglect the subjective dimension of human experience. This has led to a severely distorted and impoverished understanding of ourselves and our place in nature.

6. Science is first and foremost a non-dogmatic, open-minded method of acquiring knowledge about nature through the observation, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Its methodology is not synonymous with materialism and should not be committed to any particular beliefs, dogmas, or ideologies.

7. At the end of the nineteenth century, physicists discovered empirical phenomena that could not be explained by classical physics. This led to the development, during the 1920s and early 1930s, of a revolutionary new branch of physics called quantum mechanics (QM). QM has questioned the material foundations of the world by showing that atoms and subatomic particles are not really solid objects–they do not exist with certainty at definite spatial locations and definite times. Most importantly, QM explicitly introduced the mind into its basic conceptual structure since it was found that particles being observed and the observer–the physicist and the method used for observation–are linked. According to one interpretation of QM, this phenomenon implies that the consciousness of the observer is vital to the existence of the physical events being observed, and that mental events can affect the physical world. The results of recent experiments support this interpretation. These results suggest that the physical world is no longer the primary or sole component of reality, and that it cannot be fully understood without making reference to the mind.

8. Psychological studies have shown that conscious mental activity can causally influence behavior, and that the explanatory and predictive value of agentic factors (e.g. beliefs, goals, desires and expectations) is very high. Moreover, research in psychoneuroimmunology indicates that our thoughts and emotions can markedly affect the activity of the physiological systems (e.g., immune, endocrine, cardiovascular) connected to the brain. In other respects, neuroimaging studies of emotional self-regulation, psychotherapy, and the placebo effect demonstrate that mental events significantly influence the activity of the brain.

9. Studies of the so-called "psi phenomena" indicate that we can sometimes receive meaningful information without the use of ordinary senses, and in ways that transcend the habitual space and time constraints. Furthermore, psi research demonstrates that we can mentally influence–at a distance–physical devices and living organisms (including other human beings). Psi research also shows that distant minds may behave in ways that are nonlocally correlated, i.e. the correlations between distant minds are hypothesized to be unmediated (they are not linked to any known energetic signal), unmitigated (they do not degrade with increasing distance), and immediate (they appear to be simultaneous). These events are so common that they cannot be viewed as anomalous nor as exceptions to natural laws, but as indications of the need for a broader explanatory framework that cannot be predicated exclusively on materialism.

10. Conscious mental activity can be experienced in clinical death during a cardiac arrest (this is what has been called a "near-death experience" [NDE]). Some near-death experiencers (NDErs) have reported veridical out-of-body perceptions (i.e. perceptions that can be proven to coincide with reality) that occurred during cardiac arrest. NDErs also report profound spiritual experiences during NDEs triggered by cardiac arrest. It is noteworthy that the electrical activity of the brain ceases within a few seconds following a cardiac arrest.

11. Controlled laboratory experiments have documented that skilled research mediums (people who claim that they can communicate with the minds of people who have physically died) can sometimes obtain highly accurate information about deceased individuals. This further supports the conclusion that mind can exist separate from the brain.

12. Some materialistically inclined scientists and philosophers refuse to acknowledge these phenomena because they are not consistent with their exclusive conception of the world. Rejection of post-materialist investigation of nature or refusal to publish strong science findings supporting a post-materialist framework are antithetical to the true spirit of scientific inquiry, which is that empirical data must always be adequately dealt with. Data which do not fit favored theories and beliefs cannot be dismissed a priori. Such dismissal is the realm of ideology, not science.

13. It is important to realize that psi phenomena, NDEs in cardiac arrest, and replicable evidence from credible research mediums, appear anomalous only when seen through the lens of materialism.

14. Moreover, materialist theories fail to elucidate how brain could generate the mind, and they are unable to account for the empirical evidence alluded to in this manifesto. This failure tells us that it is now time to free ourselves from the shackles and blinders of the old materialist ideology, to enlarge our concept of the natural world, and to embrace a post-materialist paradigm.

15. According to the post-materialist paradigm:

a) Mind represents an aspect of reality as primordial as the physical world. Mind is fundamental in the universe, i.e. it cannot be derived from matter and reduced to anything more basic.

b) There is a deep interconnectedness between mind and the physical world.

c) Mind (will/intention) can influence the state of the physical world, and operate in a nonlocal (or extended) fashion, i.e. it is not confined to specific points in space, such as brains and bodies, nor to specific points in time, such as the present. Since the mind may nonlocally influence the physical world, the intentions, emotions, and desires of an experimenter may not be completely isolated from experimental outcomes, even in controlled and blinded experimental designs.

d) Minds are apparently unbounded, and may unite in ways suggesting a unitary, One Mind that includes all individual, single minds.

e) NDEs in cardiac arrest suggest that the brain acts as a transceiver of mental activity, i.e. the mind can work through the brain, but is not produced by it. NDEs occurring in cardiac arrest, coupled with evidence from research mediums, further suggest the survival of consciousness, following bodily death, and the existence of other levels of reality that are non-physical.

f) Scientists should not be afraid to investigate spirituality and spiritual experiences since they represent a central aspect of human existence.

16. Post-materialist science does not reject the empirical observations and great value of scientific achievements realized up until now. It seeks to expand the human capacity to better understand the wonders of nature, and in the process rediscover the importance of mind and spirit as being part of the core fabric of the universe. Post-materialism is inclusive of matter, which is seen as a basic constituent of the universe.

17. The post-materialist paradigm has far-reaching implications. It fundamentally alters the vision we have of ourselves, giving us back our dignity and power, as humans and as scientists. This paradigm fosters positive values such as compassion, respect, and peace. By emphasizing a deep connection between ourselves and nature at large, the post-materialist paradigm also promotes environmental awareness and the preservation of our biosphere. In addition, it is not new, but only forgotten for four hundred years, that a lived transmaterial understanding may be the cornerstone of health and wellness, as it has been held and preserved in ancient mind-body-spirit practices, religious traditions, and contemplative approaches.

18. The shift from materialist science to post-materialist science may be of vital importance to the evolution of the human civilization. It may be even more pivotal than the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism.

We invite you, scientists of the world, to read the Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science and sign it, if you wish to show your support (see http://opensciences.org/).

* The Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science was prepared by Mario Beauregard, PhD (University of Arizona), Gary E. Schwartz, PhD (University of Arizona), and Lisa Miller, PhD (Columbia University), in collaboration with Larry Dossey, MD, Alexander Moreira-Almeida, MD, PhD, Marilyn Schlitz, PhD, Rupert Sheldrake, PhD, and Charles Tart, PhD.

**Contact
For further information, please contact Dr Mario Beauregard, Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, USA. Email: mariobeauregard@email.arizona.edu

*** We considered two ways of referring to the emerging paradigm presented in this Manifesto: the hyphenated version (post-materialism) and the non-hyphenated version (postmaterialism). The hyphenated form was selected for the sake of clarity for both scientists and lay people.

**** The Summary Report of the International Summit on Post-Materialist Science, Spirituality and Society can be downloaded here: International Summit on Post-Materialist Science: Summary Report (PDF).

To become a signatory to this manifesto, please email Dr Mario Beauregard with your name, academic degree, fields of study, title and institution.

Manifesto Authors

Mario Beauregard, PhD, Neuroscience of Consciousness
Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health, Dept of Psychology, University of Arizona, USA
Author of The Spiritual Brain and Brain Wars

Larry Dossey, MD, Internal Medicine
Independent Scholar and Executive Editor, Explore
Author of Recovering the Soul, USA

Lisa Jane Miller, PhD, Clinical Psychology
Editor, Oxford Handbook of Psychology & Spirituality, Editor-in-Chief, Spirituality in Clinical Practice
Professor & Director, Spirituality & Mind Body Institute, Columbia University, USA

Alexander Moreira-Almeida, MD, PhD, Psychiatry
Associate Professor, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora
Founder & Director, Research Center in Spirituality and Health, Brazil

Marilyn Schlitz, PhD, Social Anthropology
Founder & CEO, Worldview Enterprises
President Emeritus & Senior Fellow, Institute of Noetic Sciences, USA

Gary Schwartz, PhD, Psychology, Neurology, Psychiatry & Surgery
Professor, University of Arizona
Director, Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health, USA

Rupert Sheldrake, PhD, Biochemistry, Developmental Biology, Consciousness Studies
Fellow, Institute of Noetic Sciences, Fellow, Schumacher College
Author of A New Science of Life, UK

Charles T Tart, PhD, Transpersonal Psychology
Core Faculty Member, Sofia University
Professor Emeritus of Psychology, University of California, USA

Scientists, Doctors and Philosophers Who Agree with this Manifesto

Mahmood Ahmed, M Phil, Physics, Quantum Optics
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Robert Almeder, PhD, Philosophy of Science and Epistemology
Professor Emeritus, Georgia State University Department of Philosophy, USA
Dr Philippe Antoine, neuropsychiatry, hypnotherapy
Founder, School of Integrative Meditation, Belgium
Yasco Aracava, PhD
Research Associate, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Dept of Epidemiology & Public Health, USA
William Bengston, PhD, Sociology, Energy Healing
President, Society for Scientific Exploration, Professor of sociology, St Josephs College, USA
Daniel J Benor, MD, Wholistic Psychotherapy
Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Healing and Caring, Professor, Energy Medicine University, Canada
Christine Berger, PhD, LCPC Counselor Education, Mental Health Counseling and Pastoral Counseling
Assistant Professor, Old Dominion University, USA
Stuart B Bonnington, EdD
Professor of Psychology Austin Peay State University Clarksville, USA
Ivor Browne, MD, Psychiatry
Former Chief Psychiatrist, Eastern Health Board, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at University College Dublin, Ireland
Leonardo Ferreira Caixeta, MD, PhD, Psychiatry and Neurosciences
Associate Professor of Neuropsychiatry, Federal University of Goias, Brazil
Anna Capaldo, PhD, Endocrinology
University Researcher, Department of Biology, University Federico II, Naples, Italy
John Christopher, PhD, Professor of Psychiatry, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
Cynthia Douglas, MD, Anatomic and Clinical Pathology, Cytopathology, San Luis Obispo, USA
Ana Catarina Araújo Elias, PhD, Psychology
Post-doc Researcher, University of São Paulo, Institute of Cancer of the State of São Paulo, Brazil
Jean-Jacques Charbonier, MD, Anesthesiology, Near-death Experience
Author of 7 Reasons to Believe in the Afterlife, France
Julio Maria Fonseca Chebli, MD, PhD, Gastroenterology
Associate Professor and Rector Elect of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil
Humberto Schubert Coelho, PhD, Philosophy
Assistant Professor, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Brazil
Michael Dickman, PhD, Chemistry
Professor, Saint-Boniface University, Winnipeg, Canada
Arnaud Delorme, PhD, Computational Neurosciences
Principal investigator, CNRS, France
Pierre Demers, PhD, Education
Retired Professor, University of Sherbrooke, Canada
Sylvie Dethiollaz, PhD, Altered States of Consciousness Studies
Director of the Swiss Institute of Noetic Sciences, Switzerland
Sonia Q Doi, MD, PhD, Medicine
Research Associate Professor, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, USA
Deborah Erickson, PhD, Psychology, Consciousness
Adjunct Faculty, Emergent Studies Institute, Webmaster, Society for Psychical Research, USA
Elizabeth S Freire, PhD, Psychology
Research Fellow, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil
Helen Gibbons, MS, Psychology, Neuroscience, Autogenic Therapy
Founder and Director, Autogenic Training Institute, Australia
Antonio Giuditta, MD, Physiology, Neurobiology
Emeritus Professor, The Federico II University Department of Biology, Naples, Italy
David H Goldberg, PhD, Experimental and Physiological Psychology
Former Dean of the Graduate School for Holistic Studies, John F Kennedy University, USA
Andrea Becky Hanson, Psychology, Cultural Anthropology
Founding Director, Merging Rivers Healing Practices, Faculty, Omega Institute for Holistic Studies, USA
Erlendur Haraldsson PhD, Psychology
Professor Emeritus, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
Emily R Hawken, PhD, Biomedical and Molecular Sciences
Postdoctoral Fellow, Queen's University, Canada
Louis AG Hissink III, Msc MAIG MIEEE
Editor Australian Inst. Geoscientists News, retired geologist, New South Wales, Australia
Sally Hofmeyr, PhD, Ecology, Environmental Change, Science Communication
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Cape Town, South Africa
Sara Towe Horsfall, PhD, Sociology Associate Professor, Texas Wesleyan University, Former President, Southwest Sociological Association, USA
Alan Hugenot, Engr ScD, Mechanical & Marine Engineering, NDEs, Consciousness
Naval Architect, Director of the International Association for Near Death Studies - San Francisco Group
Dora Incontri (Dora Alice Colombo), PhD, Education, Philosophy and Spirituality
Independent Scholar, Author, Editor of Educação e Espiritualidade
Frouwke Ipema, MSc, Nursing, Depth psychology
Jungian Analytic Therapist, Founder, Practice for health promotion for Men and Organization, Netherlands
Christopher K Johannes, PhD, Transpersonal Psychology
Tokunin Assistant Professor, Kansai Gaidai College, Kyoto, Japan
Shelli Joye, BSEE, MA, PhDc, Electromagnetic Frequency Field Theory of Consciousness
Researcher, California Institute of Integral Studies, USA
Ingeborg Kader, PhD, Archeology
Curator Museum für Abgüsse Klassischer Bildwerke, Munich, Germany
Zdena Kmunickova, MD, psychiatry Psychiatrist, Prague, Czech Republic
Natalia Kolobova, PhD, Sociology
Management of the National Institute of Certified Consultants, Russia
Eugene N Kovalenko, PhD, Materials Science
Retired, University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA
Asimina Lazaridou, PhD, Psychology
Postdoctoral Fellow, Surgery department, Massachusets General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, USA
Laurence Lins, PhD, Biophysics
Research Scientist and Associate Professor, University of Liège, Belgium
Martin F Luthke, PhD, Clinical Psychology
Director, Institute of Psychoenergetic Healing, Bavaria, Germany.
Pim van Lommel, Cardiologist, NDE-researcher
Author of Consciousness Beyond Life, Netherlands
John R Lucy, PhD
Clinical Psychologist, Decatur, GA, USA
Dr Roger A McMaster-Fay, MRCOG FRANZCOG, Gynaecology & Obstetrics
Clinical Lecturer, Faculity of Medicine, University of Sydney, Australia
Dr Richard Louis Miller, PhD, Clinical Psychology
Owner, Wilbur Hot Springs, Host, Mind Body Health & Politics radio program, California, USA
Lorna Minewiser, PhD, Psychology
Certified Energy Health Practitioner, Sacramento, USA
Carlos Alberto Mourão Jr, PhD, Neuroscience
Professor of Physiology, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil
Caio Márcio de Oliveira Monteiro, PhD, Zoology, Parasitology
Research Fellow, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil
Donald G Murphy, PhD, Biology, Energy Healing
Researcher, National Institutes of Health (Retired), Board Member, Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
Kathleen Noble, PhD, Psychology, Consciousness
Professor, University of Washington-Bothell, Founder, Center for Education and Research in Consciousness, USA
Adrian Parker, PhD, Clinical Psychology, Consciousness Studies
Professor, Gothenburg University Department of Psychology, Sweden
Julio F P Peres, PhD, Neuroscience and Behavior
Clinical Psychologist, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Alain Pénoël, PhD, Mathematics
Retired professor, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France
Kenneth Ring, PhD, Near-death Experiences
Professor Emeritus of Psychology University of Connecticut, USA
Theo de Roon, MSc, Health Sciences, Depth Psychology
Jungian Analytical Therapist, Founder, SustainingPeople!, Netherlands
Dr Tim Read, FRCPsych
Emeritus Consultant Psychiatrist Royal London Hospital, UK
Jeffrey D Rediger, MD, MDiv
Medical and Clinical Director, McLean Hospital SE and Community Programs, Harvard Medical School, USA
Mark A Rivera, MS, Physics
Complex Systems Analysis, Boeing Research & Technology, USA
Antonio Roazzi, PhD Oxford, Cognitive Psychology
Professor, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Programa, Brazil
John Rudkin, BSc, DipChemEng, CEng, CChem, FRSC, FIChemE
Retired director, process industry, Cambridge, UK
Franklin Santana Santos, MD, PhD, Thanatology, Palliative Care, Death Education & Grief
School of Medicine, Federal University of Bahia, Brazil
Rolf Sattler, PhD, DSc (hc), FLS, FRSC, Biology and Philosophy
Professor Emeritus, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Eduardo Ekman Schenberg, PhD, Neuroscience
Researcher, Universidade Federal de São Paulo; General Director, Instituto Plantando Consciência, Brazil
Stefan Schmidt, PhD, Psychology, Neurophysiology, Integrative Medicine
Professor, European University Viadrina, Researcher, University Hospital Freiburg, Germany
Valdemar W Setzer, PhD, Computer Science, Education and Anthroposophy
Professor, Department of Computer Science, Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, Univsersity of São Paulo, Brazil
Charles Simonini, PhD, Clinical Psychology
Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, USA
David J Shuch, BS(Biol), DDS Founder and Director, The Center for Integrative Dentistry, Augusta, NJ, USA
Richard Silberstein, PhD, Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuro-Imaging
Professor Emeritus, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
Cicero T Silva, MD, Pediatric radiology
Associate professor of diagnostic radiology, Yale School of Medicine, USA
Henryk Skolimowski, DPhil, Philosophy
Professor Emeritus, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, USA
John H Spencer, PhD, Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Physics
Multiple award winning author of The Eternal Law, Canada
C Scott Taylor, BSocSc (Hons), PhD, Human Geography, Animal Geographies
Exec Dir Cetacean Studies Institute, Australia
Filippo Tempia, MD, PhD, Neuroscience Institute of Turin (NIT) and National Institute of Neuroscience-Italy (INN), University of Turin, Italy
William A Tiller, PhD, Materials Science, Engineering, Psychoenergetics
Professor Emeritus, Stanford University, Department of Materials Science and Engineering
John V Thomas, PhD, Lecturer of Philosophy of Science, Cosmology, Metaphysics
De Paul Institute of Religion and Philosophy, Bangalore, India
Courtney Toomey, MD, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Director of Rehabilitation at HealthBridge Children's Hospital in Houston Texas; Director of Brain Injury Program, USA
Eduardo Tosta, MD, PhD, Medical Immunology
Professor Emeritus & Senior Researcher, University of Brasília, Brazil
Natalie Trent, PhD, Neuroscience and Psychology
Research Fellow at Harvard University Department of Psychology, USA
Sébastien Tremblay, PhD, Mathematical Physics
Professor, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Canada
Patrizio Tressoldi, PhD, Psychology
Researcher, Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Università di Padova, Italy
Alvaro Vannucci, PhD, Physics
Associate Professor, Physics Institute, University os São Paulo, Brazil
Florence Vinit, PhD, Sociology, Psychology, Phenomenology of the Body, Sensoriality
Professor, Université du Québec à Montréal, Co-founder & Psychosocial Director, Dr Clown, Canada
Harald Walach, PhD, Clinical Psychology, PhD, History and Theory of Science
Director of the Institute for Transcultural Health Sciences, European University Viadrina, Germany
Laurens Wolters, MS, Health Sciences, Psychotherapy, Management, Depth Psychology
Lecturer, Universiteit Leiden, Jungian Institute in Nijmegen, New Jung Academy, Netherlands

 

[Skarekrow]

[MENTION=6697]apemon[/MENTION]

Also -

100 Notable Scientists Call for Open Study of Consciousness
​

by Sebastian Penraeth05 November 2014

Recently a call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness was published by Etzel Cardeña at Lund University in Sweden, on behalf of 100 notable scientists.

Dismissing empirical observations a priori, based solely on biases or theoretical assumptions, underlies a distrust of the ability of the scientific process to discuss and evaluate evidence on its own merits. The undersigned differ in the extent to which we are convinced that the case for psi phenomena has already been made, but not in our view of science as a non-dogmatic, open, critical but respectful process that requires thorough consideration of all evidence as well as skepticism toward both the assumptions we already hold and those that challenge them.

​

Like our own Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science here at OpenSciences.org, this cry from dedicated scientists for an open, taboo-free attitude is encouraging. Together with other evidence of expanding interests, this may herald a truly substantive shift in the broader scientific community towards truly open enquiery. As Dean Radin wrote in The Conscious Universe:

... when earth-shattering ideas move from Stage 1, "it's impossible," to Stage 2, "it's real, but too weak to be important," Stage 3 often follows. This is when the consequences of "it's real" begin to dawn on a new generation of scientists who did not have to struggle through the blinders of past prejudices.

​

 

[Skarekrow]

I left off the list of the 100 scientists…it’s more of the same from above.


A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness

Etzel Cardeña[SUP]*[/SUP]

• 
  [*=left]Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Science thrives when there is an open, informed discussion of all evidence, and recognition that scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision.
This attitude is in stark contrast with reaching conclusions based solely on a previous set of beliefs or on the assertions of authority figures.

Indeed, the search for knowledge wherever it may lead inspired a group of notable scientists and philosophers to found in 1882 the Society for Psychical Research in London.

Its purpose was “to investigate that large body of debatable phenomena… without prejudice or prepossession of any kind, and in the same spirit of exact and unimpassioned inquiry which has enabled Science to solve so many problems.”

Some of the areas in consciousness they investigated such as psychological dissociation, hypnosis, and preconscious cognition are now well integrated into mainstream science.

That has not been the case with research on phenomena such as purported telepathy or precognition, which some scientists (a clear minority according to the surveys conducted http://en.wikademia.org/Surveys_of_academic_opinion_regarding_parapsychology) dis-miss a priori as pseudoscience or illegitimate.

Contrary to the negative impression given by some critics, we would like to stress the following:

(1) Research on parapsychological phenomena (psi) is being carried out in various accredited universities and research centers throughout the world by academics in different disciplines trained in the scientific method (e.g., circa 80 Ph.D.s have been awarded in psi-related topics in the UK in recent years). This research has continued for over a century despite the taboo against investigating the topic, almost complete lack of funding, and professional and personal attacks (Cardeña, 201). The Parapsychological Association has been an affiliate of the AAAS since 1969, and more than 20 Nobel prizewinners and many other eminent scientists have supported the study of psi or even conducted research themselves (Cardeña, 2013).

(2) Despite a negative attitude by some editors and reviewers, results supporting the validity of psi phenomena continue to be published in peer-reviewed, academic journals in relevant fields, from psychology to neuroscience to physics e.g., (Storm et al., 2010; Bem, 2011; Hameroff, 2012;Radin et al., 2012).

(3) Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses (Sherwood and Roe, 2003; Schmidt et al., 2004; Bösch et al., 2006; Radin et al., 2006; Storm et al., 2010, 2012,2013; Tressoldi, 2011; Mossbridge et al., 2012; Schmidt, 2012).

(4) These meta-analyses and other studies (Blackmore, 1980)suggest that data supportive of psi phenomena cannot reasonably be accounted for by chance or by a “file drawer” effect. Indeed, contrary to most disciplines, parapsychology journals have for decades encouraged publication of null results and of papers critical of a psi explanation (Wiseman et al., 1996; Schönwetter et al., 2011). A psi trial registry has been established to improve research practicehttp://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/TrialRegistryDetails.html.

(5) The effect sizes reported in most meta-analyses are relatively small and the phenomena cannot be produced on demand, but this also characterizes various phenomena found in other disciplines that focus on complex human behavior and performance such as psychology and medicine (Utts, 1991; Richard and Bond, 2003).

(6) Although more conclusive explanations for psi phenomena await further theoretical and research developments, they do not prima facie violate known laws of nature given modern theories in physics that transcend classical restrictions of time and space, combined with growing evidence for quantum effects in biological systems (Sheehan, 2011; Lambert et al., 2013).

With respect to the proposal that “exceptional claims require exceptional evidence,” the original intention of the phrase is typically misunderstood (Truzzi, 1978).

Even in its inaccurate interpretation what counts as an “exceptional claim” is far from clear.
For instance, many phenomena now accepted in science such as the existence of meteorites, the germ theory of disease, or, more recently, adult neurogenesis, were originally considered so exceptional that evidence for their existence was ignored or dismissed by contemporaneous scientists.

It is also far from clear what would count as “exceptional evidence” or who would set that threshold.
Dismissing empirical observations a priori, based solely on biases or theoretical assumptions, underlies a distrust of the ability of the scientific process to discuss and evaluate evidence on its own merits.

The undersigned differ in the extent to which we are convinced that the case for psi phenomena has already been made, but not in our view of science as a non-dogmatic, open, critical but respectful process that requires thorough consideration of all evidence as well as skepticism toward both the assumptions we already hold and those that challenge them.

The list then follows… etc.

 

[Skarekrow]

Toward a Post-Materialistic Science


Dave Pruett Former NASA researcher; Emeritus Professor of Mathematics, James Madison University

The latest issue of Explore -- the Journal of Science and Healing -- contains a bombshell of an essay.
It's titled "Manifesto for a Post-Materialist Science," and it could be to science what Luther's 95 Theses were to religion.

​

"Eye of God:" Hubble Telescope image of Helix Nebula.

All eight co-authors are eminent; all but two hold PhDs.
Their fields include biology, neuroscience, psychology, medicine, and psychiatry.

One of the two MDs is Larry Dossey, a pioneer of mind-body medicine and a regular contributor to Huffington Post.
The lead authors, Mario Beauregard, Gary Schwartz, and Lisa Miller, are academicians at top-notch universities.

Beauregard and Schwartz are both at the University of Arizona; Miller is at Columbia.
I'm familiar with two other co-authors: Marilyn Schlitz, the former president and CEO of the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), and Rupert Sheldrake, a Cambridge University trained biochemist and prolific author.

Sheldrake stirred up a hornets' nest in 2013 by his TED talk on consciousness, which contravened scientific orthodoxy by suggesting that mind (as opposed to brain) is nonlocal.

TED subsequently pulled the talk from YouTube, generating a firestorm of controversy.
I weighed in with a HuffPost blog titled "Science vs. Pseudoscience" that generated its own stir.

The authors of the manifesto are all scientific mavericks whose viewpoints are not mainstream.
It's worth noting, however, that neither were Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, or Einstein mainstream.

All challenged the scientific status quo, and all were eventually vindicated by the canonization of their once-radical views.
The manifesto is but two pages in length, well-reasoned, persuasive, and worth reading in its entirety.

But here's the gist, with a little history interspersed.

*****


Major advances in science -- revolutions, even -- follow the collapse of outworn paradigms, whose overthrow is forced by the accumulation of empirical evidence that violates the paradigm.

Scientists refer tongue-in-cheek to such misbehaving evidence as the "damned facts."
The mother of all scientific revolutions was the Copernican Revolution.

In the 14 centuries that Ptolemy's geocentric model of the cosmos remained in vogue, a number of "damned facts" accumulated, among them the apparent retrograde motion of Mars, for which the model had no easy explanation.

These inconsistencies prompted Copernicus (1473-1543) to "fix" the Ptolemaic model.
He failed and concluded it was fundamentally flawed.

With a radical -- heliocentric -- change of perspective, the inconsistencies vanished, and the "solar system" was born.

As a young man, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) became the protégé of Tycho Brahe, the pre-eminent astronomer of his day.
Try as he might, Kepler could not match Tycho's precise astronomical data with the Aristotelian dogma that the planets traverse perfect circles.

After numerous dead ends, Kepler stumbled upon elliptical orbits, which fit the data to a "T." Kepler's laws paved the way for the celestial mechanics of Newton, and ultimately for the moon landing of 1969.

While pondering the "damned facts" of the photoelectric effect, Einstein abandoned the accepted wave theory of light and returned to the discredited particle theory, lending credence to Max Planck's quantum mechanics (QM).

Einstein, a strict determinist, chafed against QM's probabilistic implications and lamented that he had contributed to QM's overthrow of classical mechanics.
Science is at its best when open to the potential significance of "damned facts."

It's at its worst when, constrained by dogma, it ignores them.
History records that some of Galileo's contemporaries, having peered through the telescope to observe the moons of Jupiter, denied the witness of their own eyes, believing these moons "illusions of the devil."

Such is the power of dogma.

Classical physics, which is based upon a mechanistic and materialistic view of nature, has been wildly successful.
It's brought us the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, mechanization, automobiles, air travel, and space exploration.

Quantum mechanics, however, supersedes Newtonian mechanics and undermines the classical assumption of materialism.
Nevertheless, many, if not most scientists, remain as firmly locked into the ideology of "scientific materialism" as Galileo's contemporaries remained in the thrall of Aristotle and Ptolemy.

The newest frontier of science is the study of consciousness, for which a materialistic bias is particularly prejudicial.
That is, investigations of consciousness reveal phenomena that appear to violate the existing materialistic paradigm.

Materialistically oriented scientists typically reject these so-called "paranormal" phenomena out-of-hand because they fly in the face of cherished preconceptions.

The refusal to accept the "damned facts" at face value and confront them head-on is, according to the authors, "antithetical to the true spirit of scientific inquiry."

The authors then propose a radical, post-materialistic paradigm: "Mind represents an aspect of reality as primordial as the physical world.
Mind is fundamental in the universe; i.e., it cannot be derived from matter and reduced to anything more basic."

In the final essay (April 4, 2013) of a nine-part Huffington Post series on "Science's Sacred Cows," I arrived at essentially the same conclusion: "Consciousness is not the magical by-product of a mechanical cosmos.

It is an inherent attribute of the stuff of the universe."
The idea is neither original nor new.

One can find intimations of this point of view in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Hegel, and articulation of it in the writings of paleontologist-priest Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) and "geologian"Thomas Berry (1914-2009).

What's new, however, is the naming of the science of the future as "post-materialistic" and that the idea is gaining traction.
The proposed post-materialistic paradigm heals the Cartesian partition separating mind and matter, reunites philosophy and natural philosophy, and begins to resolve the age-old clash between science and religion.

Much of the tragedy of the human condition lies in the competition for human allegiance of two rigid metaphysics: transcendental monism (spirit/psyche first) and materialistic monism (matter first), the former the metaphysic of religion and the latter that of science.

"Do we really need to make this tragic choice?" pleads Ilya Prigogine, Nobel laureate in chemistry.
The post-materialistic paradigm grants equal primacy to mind and matter.

In the words of Teilhard de Chardin: "There is neither spirit nor matter in the world. The stuff of the universe is spirit-matter. No other substance but this could have produced the human molecule."

The manifesto concludes:

The shift from materialistic science to post-materialistic science may be of vital importance to the evolution of human civilization. It may be even more pivotal than the transition from geocentrism to heliocentrism.


​

​

I fully concur.
In Reason and Wonder (Praeger 2012) I argue that human self-perception has evolved through the successive shocks of three major scientific upheavals.

The first, due to Copernicus, reset our physical place in the universe.
The second, due to Darwin, revised our biological place.

And the third, now in progress, will ultimately redefine our psychic/spiritual place in the cosmos.

The appearance of "Manifesto for a Post-Materialistic Science" suggests that Revolution III is well underway.
The author is grateful to Dr. Henry Reed for calling his attention to this important document.

 

[Skarekrow]

@apemon @Kgal @Eventhorizon @Jimmers @Jacobi @sprinkles @vandyke [MENTION=6606]housel[/MENTION]
@solongotgon @Free Mind @Y0u @nosferatu @Cornerstone... and just dammit if I missed anyone who would be interested.

This is one of the best talks I have seen in a while….what are all your thoughts?

Exploring Non-local Consciousness


[video=youtube_share;N6OKfVQSccs]http://youtu.be/N6OKfVQSccs[/video]

Exploring Non-local Consciousness with Dean Radin (Senior Scientist at IONS), Neil Theise (Professor of Pathology and of Medicine), Julia Mossbridge (Cognitive Neuroscientist), John Hagelin (Quantum Physicist), Menas Kafatos (Quantum Physicist) and Rudolph Tanzi (Professor of Neurology, Harvard University), moderated by Cassandra Vieten (President of IONS)

This superstar interdisciplinary panel will engage some of the very latest thinking and evidence for why it is becoming increasingly impossible to reduce consciousness to brain processes alone.

We will ask questions like: How is it possible that we can access information at a distance and into the future?
What is the relationship between unconsciousness processing and nonlocal consciousness?

If our mind is locked inside of our skull, what accounts for mind-matter interactions?
And what are the boundaries of the body anyway?

And how can we learn to “use our brain” instead of having “our brain use us?”​

 

[sprinkles]

@apemon @Kgal @Eventhorizon @Jimmers @Jacobi @sprinkles @vandyke
@solongotgon @Free Mind @Y0u @nosferatu @Cornerstone... and just dammit if I missed anyone who would be interested.

This is one of the best talks I have seen in a while….what are all your thoughts?

Exploring Non-local Consciousness


[video=youtube_share;N6OKfVQSccs]http://youtu.be/N6OKfVQSccs[/video]

Exploring Non-local Consciousness with Dean Radin (Senior Scientist at IONS), Neil Theise (Professor of Pathology and of Medicine), Julia Mossbridge (Cognitive Neuroscientist), John Hagelin (Quantum Physicist), Menas Kafatos (Quantum Physicist) and Rudolph Tanzi (Professor of Neurology, Harvard University), moderated by Cassandra Vieten (President of IONS)

This superstar interdisciplinary panel will engage some of the very latest thinking and evidence for why it is becoming increasingly impossible to reduce consciousness to brain processes alone.

We will ask questions like: How is it possible that we can access information at a distance and into the future?
What is the relationship between unconsciousness processing and nonlocal consciousness?

If our mind is locked inside of our skull, what accounts for mind-matter interactions?
And what are the boundaries of the body anyway?

And how can we learn to “use our brain” instead of having “our brain use us?”​

I've never thought that consciousness is local. Awareness is often local (but not necessarily always) but consciousness is certainly not local.

Your environment gives rise to your consciousness. Ideas have genesis in your surroundings and you feed them back into your surroundings.

It's like, what's the difference between doing math on a calculator vs math in your head? If you do it in your head, aren't you just being an internal calculator anyway? What if we took the part of your brain that does math, and removed it, and put it in a device and called it a calculator. What then?

Isn't 'local consciousness' just an arbitrary separation of space and matter? When you use a computer, what makes you not the computer? You can't sense all its calculations? Well you can't sense all your calculations either. It's physically separate from you? Well, why does that matter?

What happens when the 'computer' is another person?

 

[j654dgj7]

I'm not smart enough to be here