The Case For Survival

[Alexius4]

What do you think about the case for survival after death?

A good resource for general background can be found at The ISS Website which is chock full of interesting articles and amusing photos

Me, I think the Cross Correspondances provide a lot of food for thought - enough to prevent me dismissing the case entirely out of hand.

 

[_Lizard23_]

I cannot formulate an opinion sufficiently clearly to participate in this poll, even for a bit of fun, nor do I think my thoughts on the subject are of any value to anyone other than myself .... if really pushed I probably subscribe to a pseudo-buddhist wheel of samsara style concept, of one consciousness experiencing itself in a multitude of ways, of which life, death and individual selves are but fragments. It's a personal, intuitive thing and I have no interest in whether it is 'true' or not.

That's in my mystical moments (I just had one ) otherwise, with my scientific-rationalist hat on (it's dull but keeps the rain off), I am firmly in the 'cruel void' camp ... unless I hear a particularly good ghost story of course .......

However if there is one thing that really rocks this incarnation's boat it is cheesecloth-outta-the-nose ectoplasm photography, so great link!

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/photographs/harrison/2.htm

*snigger*

 

[Anonymous]

Case for Survival

Well I'm back from the dead. Hmm?

 

[Timble2]

Re: Case for Survival

Well I'm back from the dead. Hmm?

But WHO are you?

On the subject of the poll what we know of how the universe's and on a smaller scale, we, are put together strongly suggests the answer is that we don't go on.

On the other had there's the weird end of science, phenomena like NDEs and experiences over the centuries, that suggest that the universe is rather more than we see, or to paraphase Haldane, or are able to see. So it's not impossible.....

The ISS site looks like the successor of late 19th century early 20th spiritualism, with a few more recent phenomena thrown in...

The whole field is fully of shaky and ambiguous evidence - the NDE is certainely a real phenomenom and evidence of something, though quite what, weird physiological effects in the brain as it shuts down for the last time or eveidence of the life hereafter is one that's going to be argued for a long time yet.

 

[Anonymous]

Take a look at 'The Emperor's New Mind' by Roger Penrose. He's the mathematician who works with Hawking. I couldn't do justice to his theories without making him sound a nutter, but I think Penrose' model of the way the mind works, in relationship to the mechanism of interface to 'reality' leaves the door open some form of survival, in the sense of a self ordered 'energy' field.

You can get it from most libraries


[edit] Excremental spelling...

 

[Timble2]

I was thinking about 'The Emperor's New Mind' when I mentioned the weird end of science.

Like Hugo, I couldn't do justice to Penrose's model of consciousness without sounding as if I (or Penrose) was completely barking).

Another book which looks at a type of afterlife and is way out on edge of science is Frank Tipler's 'The Physics of Immortality'.

I think his physics is probably sound, but the scenario he imagines of god-like highly, evolved entities at the end of the universe (the Omega Point), recreating everyone who has ever lived in an infinitely long virtual life that is contained within our finite universe, is pure SF, and I think at some point Professor Tipler went over the edge rather that just being out there on it.
It's still an interesting book.

 

[Anonymous]

Oooh, similar thread here, although that one's more about personal belief than factual evidence...

 

[Alexius4]

Read the Emp's New Mind years ago, and found it fascinating, too. Definitely a recommended read.

There is a line of argument that Quantum Physics leaves the door open to survival - not being up on the subject, I can't yay or nay it.

ISS appears very antiquated, but in fairness an awful lot of the research predates the 1940s; the attention shifted towards psi in general after the war, when the survival hypothesis became unpopular.

My own feeling is that the door is open to explore the issue without fearing catcalls of incredulity. The amount of anecdotal and experiment evidence is strong enough to merit conditional acceptence for the purposes of building up and exploring the possibilities.

ISS does hold Stephen Braude's essays on the survival vs. super psi issue, which is pretty much the philosophical cutting edge in the field. Genuinely interesting stuff.

 

[Anome]

I don't think I managed to finish The Emperor's New Mind. I think it was just too big, and didn't really hold my attention.

I agree with Penrose's basic argument, while disagreeing strongly with some of his details. I agree that we will not understand conciousness until we understand Quantum Theory a lot better, but I do not think that the micro-tubules are an obvious seat of conciousness, or that conciousness is a quantum effect.

The way I see it, we really don't know enough about how the human brain works to be able to start leaping to conclusions about some of this stuff. The micro-tubules are a convenient device, bu until we understand more about what is going on in the brain, we can't leap to the conclusions that Penrose and others have.

In other words, we not only need to understand Quantum Mechanics better, but a wide range of other subjects, and by then, maybe (just maybe) we will have worked out how more of the brain works, and what the mind actually is.

Will we live forever? There are people who believe that all we need to do is upload our "minds" into a computer and immortality is achieved. Although none of them are clear on exactly how to do this, or why I should believe that's me in there, when I'm clearly out here.

I'm currently open-minded on the matter of an eternal soul. While I "know" intellectually that we are just bio-mechanical systems, and that our total "essence" is tied to the mass of flesh and bone, it almost seems absurd that something as complicated as the human mind can be contained by it. Then again, it's almost equally absurd to think that it can't.

I've been using "soul" and "mind" almost interchangeably, because, to me, they are the same thing. Others will disagree. Who am I to say they're wrong?

 

[OldTimeRadio]

Atheist Survivalists

When I meet professed Atheists I often ask them whether or not they believe in the survival of consciousness past physical death.

The answer most often is "NO!! OF COURSE NOT!! WHY DO YOU EVEN ASK ME SUCH AN ASININE QUESTION?" delivered in a volume that rips the hinges off the doors.

Yet there are times, and in fact a growing number of occasions, when the answer is something on the order of "I think that a continuation of consciouness is most likely a natural function of the quantum universe."

At those times I sit at their feet and take notes, for I figure that whatever they tell me isn't going to be regurgitations from some cut-
and-dried University philosophy text.

Hey, I'm a Christian, but you take information where you can find it.

 

[Mighty_Emperor]

I'm looking for an option in the poll saying - I'll get back to you on this.

If I do shuffle off this mortal coil (I'm not planning on but who knows?) then I'll try and get back in touch (I hope the Mods of the future don't disable my account as soon as I pass away). If you don't hear from me assume the worst.

---------
Now what's this about my new mind? I'm still showing off these damn fine new clothes of mine - you wouldn't believe the looks I got in Sainsbury's today!!

 

[Graylien]

Well, I think most people would want to get in touch with their loved ones once they'd passed over. In which case, there should be an awful lot more ghosts walking the Earth than there actually are. Which suggests to me that whatever ghosts or ouija board entities are, they're not the immortal spirits of dead people - and so shouldn't be taken as evidence of life after death.

Now, there may well be forms of life in the universe which are immortal quantum multi-dimensional spirits. But sadly, we're not them.

 

[rynner2]

Will we live forever? There are people who believe that all we need to do is upload our "minds" into a computer and immortality is achieved. Although none of them are clear on exactly how to do this, or why I should believe that's me in there, when I'm clearly out here.

Given my experience of computers (and Message Board threads! ), nothing electronically organized is 'for ever'.

I guess I'll have to hope for something along the lines of a quantum consciousness rather than a machine incarnation.

 

[OldTimeRadio]

Well, I think MOST people would want to get in touch with their loved ones once they'd passed over. In which case, there should be an awful lot more ghosts walking the Earth than there actually are. Which suggests to me that whatever ghosts or ouija board entities are, they're not the immortal spirits of dead people - and so shouldn't be taken as evidence of life after death.

My own supposition is that we may be in error by limiting ourselves to talking about the physical vs. the immaterial. There may be a THIRD form - a sort of linking spirit which is halfway between the other two. That's left behind at physical death. It "decays." If (as I suspect) that third form retains some limited self-awareness it may believe that it IS the immortal essense. If so, it may be that "intelligence" which comes through on Ouija boards and claims to be Joe Smith and spouts all sorts of gibberish.

"Now, there may well be forms of life in the universe which ARE immortal quantum multi-dimensional spirits. But sadly, we're not them."

And of course there's an Anti-Graylien "out there" someplace writing exactly the same words about US. <g>

 

[gazzo10]

well over the years I've read books and books and yet more books on a whole variety of subjects related to after death survival, now I conclude that approx 95% of so called ghost, poltergeist activity is down to hallucinations or delusion and 4% down to natural science, 0.5% to hoaxing, and the 0.5% unexplained by todays science. 100% of OBEs are poss explained oxygen starvation (Or are OBEs related to someones medical condition?) 100% of ghost photos are faked or caused by lighting anomolies, mediumship is 100% fake or self delusion or both. the history of spiritualism can be summed up by one word 'fake', and current mediums care little for any scientific intervention, since Derren Brown has proved his illusionary abilities, other than that where is the evidence? The only alternative is Rupert Sheldrake who has carried out Scientific studies of telepathy and answered his critics to a 'T', but I await his latest investigations carried out with the aid of Prof Chris French with great anticipation.

 

[OldTimeRadio]

well over the years I've read books and books and yet more books on a whole variety of subjects related to after death survival, now I conclude that approx 95% of so called ghost, poltergeist activity is down to hallucinations or delusion and 4% down to natural science, 0.5% to hoaxing, and the 0.5% unexplained by todays science. 100% of OBEs are poss explained oxygen starvation (Or are OBEs related to someones medical condition?) 100% of ghost photos are faked or caused by lighting anomolies, mediumship is 100% fake or self delusion or both. the history of spiritualism can be summed up by one word 'fake', and current mediums care little for any scientific intervention, since Derren Brown has proved his illusionary abilities, other than that where is the evidence? The only alternative is Rupert Sheldrake who has carried out Scientific studies of telepathy and answered his critics to a 'T', but I await his latest investigations carried out with the aid of Prof Chris French with great anticipation.

If you are so certain of all of this [and I would agree with you on at least some of it], why in the world do you want to waste your time investigating further?

By the way, "hallucination" in its psychical research sense DOES NOT mean a false vision. It refers to a photo-realistic vision of, say, a dead friend at the moment of that person's death at a location distant from the percipient's.

 

[gazzo10]

well over the years I've read books and books and yet more books on a whole variety of subjects related to after death survival, now I conclude that approx 95% of so called ghost, poltergeist activity is down to hallucinations or delusion and 4% down to natural science, 0.5% to hoaxing, and the 0.5% unexplained by todays science. 100% of OBEs are poss explained oxygen starvation (Or are OBEs related to someones medical condition?) 100% of ghost photos are faked or caused by lighting anomolies, mediumship is 100% fake or self delusion or both. the history of spiritualism can be summed up by one word 'fake', and current mediums care little for any scientific intervention, since Derren Brown has proved his illusionary abilities, other than that where is the evidence? The only alternative is Rupert Sheldrake who has carried out Scientific studies of telepathy and answered his critics to a 'T', but I await his latest investigations carried out with the aid of Prof Chris French with great anticipation.

If you are so certain of all of this [and I would agree with you on at least some of it], why in the world do you want to waste your time investigating further?

By the way, "hallucination" in its psychical research sense DOES NOT mean a false vision. It refers to a photo-realistic vision of, say, a dead friend at the moment of that person's death at a location distant from the percipient's.

Glad you agree with some of it, but maybe at the end of this you will agree with all of it. I stated at some point that at least 0.5% is not part of our known science, hence my continued interest, and hopefully not wasting my time (but that is still possible) Also did not know that the term 'Hallucination' could have such a flexible terminology? as to include a psychical alternative definition? Also it seems to be unclear whether you are refering in some way to OBEs or NDEs or old fashioned visionary death experience? but all three have been contradicted by patients being visited at the point of death by the living? also its a well known fact by anaesthetists that sensory input does not stop when a patient is under anaesthetic,read into that what you want but modern experiements recall the the incredible possibilty of the brain to make shape of objects even by listening to conversations, if you want me to cite the various academic or ritualistic stuff on this i will do, I'm sure we are well aware of this stuff. As to the 'PHOTO-REALISTIC' vision of say a dead person at moment of a persons death, what do you mean? telepathy, a signal from a dead person? or a second hand story from a a relative or friend or what? sorry to be so specific in this subject but try inrtoduce a bit of science in this subject!

 

[OldTimeRadio]

Also did not know that the term 'Hallucination' could have such a flexible terminology? as to include a psychical alternative definition?

Not so much a "flexible" usage, but an original, correct meaning and a later rather intellectually-sloppy one.

For "hallucination" in its original and correct psychical research context see almost any of the earlier publications of the S. P. R.

As to the 'PHOTO-REALISTIC' vision of say a dead person at moment of a persons death, what do you mean?

If you consult G. Tyrrell's APPARITIONS all this is laid out in great and even stunning detail. I'd assumed that you already had.

 

[rynner2]

Richard and Judy, starting very soon:

some paranormal research will feature, involving seeing dead rellies
(I think)

 

[rynner2]

Ghostly Apparitions
‘Deathbed phenomena’, are surprisingly common. According to recent research at King's College London, around 10 per cent of the terminally ill or those caring for them report some kind of mysterious, inexplicable event that gives them a glimpse of an afterlife.
Today Richard & Judy will be joined by Dr Peter Fenwick a Consultant Neuropsychiatrist who has led the research at the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College and Dr Sam Parnia, Critical Care Doctor and author of ‘What Happens When We Die’ who is one of Britain's leading experts on near-death experiences.

If you have experienced a deathbed phenomenon please contact Professor Fenwick on here
[email protected]

http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/t ... _show.html

book on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Happens-Wh ... 1401905560

 

[OldTimeRadio]

‘Deathbed phenomena’, are surprisingly common. According to recent research at King's College London, around 10 per cent of the terminally ill or those caring for them report some kind of mysterious, inexplicable event that gives them a glimpse of an afterlife.

My maternal grandmother reported dead relatives gathered around her "deathbed," including her parents, aunts and uncles, and even a baby brother who'd died more than 60 years earlier at age two.

I put deathbed in quotes, since Grandma recovered and lived several years longer.

 

[gazzo10]

Also did not know that the term 'Hallucination' could have such a flexible terminology? as to include a psychical alternative definition?

Not so much a "flexible" usage, but an original, correct meaning and a later rather intellectually-sloppy one.

For "hallucination" in its original and correct psychical research context see almost any of the earlier publications of the S. P. R.

As to the 'PHOTO-REALISTIC' vision of say a dead person at moment of a persons death, what do you mean?

If you consult G. Tyrrell's APPARITIONS all this is laid out in great and even stunning detail. I'd assumed that you already had.

Sorry about the lateness of my reply, many thanks for the reference material, I had read Tyrrells book when I was quite young (many, many years ago) from what I remember his theory was that apparitions were created much like a stage event as a form of communication by an external force (Possibly an afterlife being, using or manipulating the sensory mechanisms in order to draw attention to its existence in some way)Forgive me if i'm wrong in this. Also The idea of hallucination (Latin: Alucinari, "To wander in mind") I thought had it's origins in early psychiatry, Esquiral introduced the idea in psychiatric literature in 1837. I'm not familier with how early SPR documentation goes, but I'm sure it must be after this period? Raynor C Johnson does an interesting write up on Tyrrells theory, presume you have read this, if not will send you the URL, I frightened of doing it now because I lost a half hours reply to you last time clicking in the address. I'm also a bit wary of reading too much of the classical SPR investigations since so much has been learned since that period with regards psychology, neuropsychodynamics etc. but one book that inflenced me a great deal was a book by Morton Schatzman called 'The Story Of Ruth', difficult to get now, but an interesting TV programme was made on British television possibly in the late 70's about its contents. regarding the very real hallucinations of a psychotherapy client.

 

[OldTimeRadio]

....from what I remember his theory was that apparitions were created much like a stage event as a form of communication by an external force (Possibly an afterlife being, using or manipulating the sensory mechanisms in order to draw attention to its existence in some way)

I found that entire "stage manager" bit a little hard to swallow. But Tyrrell's observations on ghosts as "hallucinations" are very rewarding.

 

[OldTimeRadio]

I'm also a bit wary of reading too much of the classical SPR investigations since so much has been learned since that period with regards psychology, neuropsychodynamics etc....

My mind tends to work exactly the opposite. I like to take forgotten 19th Century ideas in our field(s), give 'em a shake, and listen to see whether they still tick.

Let me give you an analogy which may even be a model:

A close friend who is a cutting-edge radio broadcast engineer collects very, very old books on antenna construction, transmitter design, radio propagation and so on.

He DOESN'T do this for historical purposes only. In his own words:

"I read them because they're so full of abandoned trails. And most of those trails weren't abandoned because there was nothing interesting along the way but because the original theorists simply didn't have the proper 'hiking gear' to get clear to the end. Today I'm able to reach the ends of those trails, coming up with some genuine innovations - and my colleagues and competitors can't quite grasp where I come up with all these 'new' ideas."

Why should psychical research be any different?

 

[gazzo10]

I'm also a bit wary of reading too much of the classical SPR investigations since so much has been learned since that period with regards psychology, neuropsychodynamics etc....

My mind tends to work exactly the opposite. I like to take forgotten 19th Century ideas in our field(s), give 'em a shake, and listen to see whether they still tick.

Let me give you an analogy which may even be a model:

A close friend who is a cutting-edge radio broadcast engineer collects very, very old books on antenna construction, transmitter design, radio propagation and so on.

He DOESN'T do this for historical purposes only. In his own words:

"I read them because they're so full of abandoned trails. And most of those trails weren't abandoned because there was nothing interesting along the way but because the original theorists simply didn't have the proper 'hiking gear' to get clear to the end. Today I'm able to reach the ends of those trails, coming up with some genuine innovations - and my colleagues and competitors can't quite grasp where I come up with all these 'new' ideas."

Why should psychical research be any different?

Interesting point, but in the world of antenna construction and transmitter design the science is a fact and not a theory. one imagines if Tyrrell, F.W Myers etc would have maintained their theories equipt with modern knowledge on neuroscience or psychology or if they were to witness the remarkable illusionary performances of Derren Brown, David Blane and others, or better, read recent scientific studies into the recreation of a presence and apparitional hallucinations via the use of electromagnetic chambers (See Earlier Fortean Times, or Blackmore) What has undermined the crediblity of these obviously very intelligent early investigators is that some (not all) have given credence to so called mediums of their time later to be providing illusionary tricks of their own. Although I must add science itself is not beyond it's own illusionists. Although I slightly revise my opinion and agree that earlier SPR investigators have a lot to offer in their literature,(Because of this correspondence I'm joining the S.P.R) as do early skeptics like Harry Houdini. Current Paranormal investigators must be alert and be there own worst critic, they would do better to steal the clothing of the wolf and take on the clothing of the sceptic. One must also keep in mind that hardened sceptics, evolutionary Darwinists, materialists ( Such as Dawkins, Harris, Blackmore) may be correct, and we may be simply looking for something that just does not exist. Although I dont necessarily agree with this theme, it cannnot be ruled out.

 

[OldTimeRadio]

....or better, read recent scientific studies into the recreation of a presence and apparitional hallucinations via the use of electromagnetic chambers(See Earlier Fortean Times, or Blackmore)

I've so far saved 19 floppy discs filled with "ghosts are just electromagnetic energy.....gravitational irregularities....atmospheric vibrations....subsonic sounds" and so on.

To be honest, it all reminds me of the Six Blind Men of Serendip and the Elephant.

A couple of years back I received a communication which asked me, "Don't you realize that ghosts are simply peripatetic electromagnetic fields?"

"Yes, of course," I responded. "What in the hell did you THINK we thought they were?"

 

[gazzo10]

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/dd/d ... Rita1.html Excellent analogy.

 

[gazzo10]

http://www.parascience.org.uk/investiga ... ohfarm.htm and also an abstract by steven T. Parsons & Ann Winsper http://www.spr.ac.uk/sprconfabstracts2006

 

[OldTimeRadio]

However if there is one thing that really rocks this incarnation's boat it is cheesecloth-outta-the-nose ectoplasm photography, so great link!

I know what you mean. However the one thing that's always impressed me are both photographs and first-person observations of ectoplasm being extruded from the nipples of the breasts.

How in the world do you fake that?

[Wait just a minute - it suddenly occurs to me that I might not actually want to know.]

 

[decipheringscars]

‘Deathbed phenomena’, are surprisingly common. According to recent research at King's College London, around 10 per cent of the terminally ill or those caring for them report some kind of mysterious, inexplicable event that gives them a glimpse of an afterlife.

My maternal grandmother reported dead relatives gathered around her "deathbed," including her parents, aunts and uncles, and even a baby brother who'd died more than 60 years earlier at age two.

I put deathbed in quotes, since Grandma recovered and lived several years longer.

Did she ever describe what they looked like? Or was it a felt presence? How did she recognize the people, in other words - did they look like they did in her memory? at the point they died? Was the baby brother still a two-year-old?

Not sure it means anything, though - assuming them to have really been her relatives, they might have been (a) appearing as they really were; or (b) appearing as she would recognize them. In the case of (b), it tells us nothing about what existence after death "looks" like.

<warning: religious dogma ahead!>
This is all quite interesting to me, because as a Christian, I do believe in something after death, basically because the faith teaches it. I believe (trust) the Church because I've encountered the Risen Christ in many ways, mediated through my family from childhood and through the Church & its sacraments, but it's still on the level of personal experience. I believe the proclamation of the early Christians that they saw Jesus in a resurrected form - and if you read about that in the Gospels, it was both familiar and strange (more on the side of strange, though). For me, the reason Jesus' Resurrection matters is that he didn't go back to just being God - he remains forever fully God and fully human. As such, his Resurrection really does tell us something about our own destiny. But precisely what, I haven't the foggiest clue! I don't over-spiritualize it, though. I don't think we have a ghost inside our bodies that is freed when our bodies fail. So I have trouble imagining how we might go on without our bodies, unless in some way our consciousness can exist apart from our brains, which makes no sense to me.

It's not just a Christian or even religious issue, though. For those of us who believe in an afterlife, how do we reconcile that with the fact that for all we can tell, our consciousness is entirely dependent on our material brain? Is it just the personal experiences that cause us to believe (trust) that there's something we just don't know/understand yet, that wouldn't contradict science at all?

[eta: I only believe in an afterlife as a concession to my faith, though. I always preferred to fade into a welcoming oblivion, but that's not the Christian view. But faith is trust, and I trust that whatever's after death is worthy of my desiring it because it will be Christ. I only add this to do my little bit to dispel the notion that those who believe in the afterlife are engaged in wishful thinking. My own wishful thinking would be for non-existence.]