Bruce Greyson, Near-Death Experience Pioneer |494|

#61
This is very good, IMO.

I tried twice, quite awkwardly,to explain a similar understanding to Alex (up-thread).

If you sit down at a poker table in Las Vegas, you don't get to call out, "Black Jack" and take all of the chips off the table. You agreed to play poker. You bought in and agreed to the rules. You could play Black Jack, but you have to go sit at an appropriate table and agree to those rules. Stupid analogy perhaps, though I think that is how "reality" (including physical reality) works. It's a paradigm, a wave length, one of many, that your awareness can buy into. In buying in, it agrees to all of the rules - or, even if it doesn't totally, the "peer pressure" of the other awarenesses in that paradigm forces the agreement. This isn't something you can "think" your way into, or out of. Once you're thinking, you've already bought in, as thinking is a way of perceiving within the physical paradigm. The buy in is something much deeper; "will" - as you put it - or "intent". In the physical paradigm, we are not even aware of the focus of our will and how it supports/maintains the paradigm along with all of the other wills doing the same. It is truly "magic" that creates and binds the paradigm. The magic is created from the energy that is expended by all of the focused awarenesses. All my opinion, of course. Not preaching here.

Yet sometimes we can stop the paradigm. Sometimes our soul's will breaks through the magical force and our focus shifts. When that happens the familiar paradigm begins to collapse and new ones leak through. Meditation can accomplish this, as can psychedelics, fasting, repetitive activities, chanting and shocks to the physical construct of the body. Great love can do it too (and, I suppose, great hate as well). All of these things cause the thinking - the inner dialogue that tells us how what is possible and not - to quiet down. Sometimes just feeling good and being in a fine "personal groove" can get you there. "Can" get you there under the right circumstances. None of those are guaranteed to do it for everyone. The stars have to align. The gravitational pull created by all of that perceptual energy is tough to break through. The soul must have enough energy - or the event must be shocking enough to smash the focus thoroughly (e.g. "death"). Even in death, some souls remain attached to the physical paradigm enough to stick around and cause mischief and to see themselves as having a body, a house, a garden, etc.

I offer as evidence telekinesis (physical objects being moved by non-physical means, by spirits or by incarnate people), precognition and powerful synchronicities (= perfect timing and great meaning). Many sane intelligent people have experienced these events and have been most impressed by them. I know I have been. I have seen/experienced all three types of those events more than once and to my satisfaction that there was no "rational" explanation for them.

If those events are real - and I'm convinced they are - then the physical world must only be a construct. Yet the physical world seems so real and so ultimate. Again, that is because we are so familiar with the construct/paradigm and so trapped by the Magic that we are usually stuck in it until our soul energy is freed to focus on some other aspect of reality. The mind reels at impending death and the inner voice is silenced. The soul's energy is set free to re-focus where its predilections wish it to. The soul is not bound by beliefs or thoughts. Those are objects of the paradigm. The soul is what it is. This is very hard for a scientist to understand because the scientist thinks he can think through anything. Thinking is how he perceives (or he thinks it is). He will filter out anything that is not thought. He cannot understand that there are other ways of perceiving that are just as valid and effective. When you are having an OBE or NDE or psi you are not thinking! You are encountering information via a different means. I know this for sure and NDErs and others have tried to explain this over and over, and then give up leaving it at the statement that there are no words for what they experienced. Words are of the physical paradigm, just as thinking is. Spirits in after death communications also say this.

Getting back to NDEs and Dr. Greyson, I used to have OBEs. In fact, for a period of maybe a year/year and half, I could induce one at will and did a lot of experimenting; testing to see if I could "come back" with verifiable detailed evidence that could not have been obtained by normal means (including subconscious means). I satisfied myself that the OBEs were real perceptions of events beyond my physical and even temporal location. I also used to think that something had left my body and traveled to times and places. I no longer think that something left my body, though I am still convinced that the experiences were totally real. Why I did I change my mind about that? I no longer can induce OBEs at will. I very rarely have them anymore; maybe once every two or three years. When I do, now that I am older and more solid in character, the sensation is different, though the accuracy of the information is still spot on. Now I experience the event as if it is a visionary state. I am not aware of my physical body, but I no longer feel like my awareness is rising out of my physical body and traveling. It's more like I am immersed in a very clear vision with all kinds of understanding and perception capabilities that I don't normally have. IMO, the leaving the body perception is an interpretation. I mean, you are leaving the body in that your are leaving that entire paradigm, but it's a matter of focus of awareness on a new paradigm, not literally leaving as in a car pulling out of a garage.

I'm rambling again. There are no words for any of this. If you've been there, you know. Otherwise......
So true, brother! Thanks for sharing this kind of experience. It takes great courage!
 
#62
great discussion :)

one thing I always thought was funny about Consciousness and emergence is that it seems kind of true but not in the way that materialist talk about. for example, I just had a lucid dream the other night and it reminded me how much I am a co-creator of my reality/experience, but not THE creator. of course the "I am" language stuff gets in the way but you know what I mean :)
Alex, you have brought all of us together, man. Give thanks to yourself, and celebrate. Love you, brother.
 
#63
I think it's important to remember random chance is another one of those faith based belief systems just like believing consciousness is emergent, though I'm so glad you mentioned it, because I think it might be time to start putting together some articles of faith for Physicalism ;) Hehehe

The problem with random chance is when you have consciousness as a doing thing, then it seems silly not to involve it as something that steers evolution.

There is still room for random chance if you want it, but it's no longer exclusively what's shaping things and more importantly, even then, what is randomness but something we can't spot a pattern in? How do we know it matches up with this intuitive concept of something that has absolutely no pattern? Half life decay appears to be completely random, but plot a lot of it and you'll end up with a really clear pattern.
Well I sort of agree about randomness and consciousness,
however my point about evolution is far more basic than that, and it permeates there was a conference back in the 60's that explored the consequences of the structure of DNA on the theory of evolution. The mathematicians and physicists came out against evolution by natural selection:

https://evolutionnews.org/2016/04/for_darwin_advo/

See for example here:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/behes-argument-in-darwin-devolved.4317/

David
 
#64
Well I sort of agree about randomness and consciousness,
however my point about evolution is far more basic than that, and it permeates there was a conference back in the 60's that explored the consequences of the structure of DNA on the theory of evolution. The mathematicians and physicists came out against evolution by natural selection:

https://evolutionnews.org/2016/04/for_darwin_advo/

See for example here:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/behes-argument-in-darwin-devolved.4317/

David
Thanks David, I think you've mentioned this to me before. I hadn't forgotten. Fascinating stuff.
 
#65
Thanks David, I think you've mentioned this to me before. I hadn't forgotten. Fascinating stuff.
Sorry to bang on about this point (although Alex bangs on about certain other points too :)), but it really is central - if materialism/physicalism got this wrong - and now looks the other way rather than confronting the hard evidence coming out of the DI, that means that science has knowingly stopped being honest about what it knows.

Another way to look at this, is that this is one point where science could undermine itself using its own methods if it didn't censor itself.

David
 
#66
Ok, that was a little weird, having made that point about evolution being steered, I went downstairs to a video I'd left paused as it was time for bed, unpaused it then had Ken Wilber of integral theory fame say what I'd just said in a different way!

Reference to Ken Wilber Video at appropriate time index (so you don't have to search)
This is fascinating! I don't think that patterns have anything to do with "evolution." Also, I don't think that things are evolving, if "evolving" means that creatures are going toward a more advanced state. Even more so, I don't think that animals, plants, and insects, are being shaped, one by one out of clay, and placed on earth by a god in the sky. However, I do not believe that all of this is without divination, called "random chance" or otherwise.

Often, I am asked, "Why do you have snakes as pets? They don't love you and acknowledge your presence like a dog or cat does. They don't acknowledge you when you come home. Why keep a pet that doesn't even care about you?"

I often respond somewhat facetiously, but in truth. People claim that a snake is on a lower rung in the ladder of evolution, but it doesn't need arms and legs to move around, yet it does so gracefully. Furthermore, a snake does not waste a morsel of its food, as it swallows it whole. Also, it never loses all its teeth, as they grow back. It doesn't need to dress itself with the skin/coat of other creatures, either, as it is born with the perfect wardrobe for its environment.

Often, I am told that I have "wild animals" and need to be aware of that fact. However, my snakes, although somewhat skittish of most human beings, are perfectly happy with being held by me for long periods of time. Go pick up your cat or dog for an hour and see how they respond? Even more so, how are humans not wild animals? Go try to physically pick one up at your local supermarket and watch what happens?!?

Divinations is the acknowledgment that we are perfect as what we are. Nothing is evolving toward a higher state. Everything, in this realm, is only an expression of the infinite wisdom of playfulness that is eternity.
 
#67
When you think about evolution, there is a strange concept of 'convergent evolution'. This is supposed to cover the cases where the same thing appears to have evolved more than once. A good example would be the eye with a lens (there are also other types of eyes). This is supposed to have 'evolved' several times, but of course a designer only needed to design this once - then just pull it down from the celestial shelf and use it again!

I have also seen suggestions (possibly links supplied by Lone Shaman) that the DNA code was originally meant to be read 2 bases at a time, rather than 3. It is virtually impossible to see how that could change after life started (so it could accommodate more types of amino acid in the resultant proteins). However, the designer could do something somewhat equivalent to recompiling his program in 64-bits instead of 32 bits. That changes most of the instructions as viewed in binary form, so superficially that looks like an impossible hurdle.

David
 
Last edited:
#68
Certainly, I love this topic! I can see it from both perspectives. Let us clarify and reinstate the question at hand: does consciousness arise from unconscious matter, or is consciousness primary?...
Hey Shane, I'd love to get your follow up on my response to your question. I know there's a lot going on, but I'm keen to learn what I can from you. :)

Here's the reply post: Forum-Post-Link
 
#69
When you think about evolution, there is a strange concept of 'convergent evolution'. This is supposed to cover the cases where the same thing appears to have evolved more than once. A good example would be the eye with a lens (there are also other types of eyes). This is supposed to have 'evolved' several times, but of course a designer only needed to design this once - then just pull it down from the celestial shelf and use it again!...
I don't think this is necessarily true. You can have intelligent design without a blueprint-type designer. What's wrong with the idea that consciousness helps shape our evolution? That our conscious minds help select things that we want? It's a hybrid approach. Very Tom Campbell I think.
 
#70
I don't think this is necessarily true. You can have intelligent design without a blueprint-type designer. What's wrong with the idea that consciousness helps shape our evolution? That our conscious minds help select things that we want? It's a hybrid approach. Very Tom Campbell I think.
Yes, but they reckon that evolution by natural selection (RM+NS) only accounts for tiny variations from species to closely related species, partly because Behe shows that there is a limit to the amount of random mutation a genome can take. It seems to me that you need the designer tweaking thing up quite often - at least on an evolutionary timescale.

David
 
#71
It seems to me that you need the designer tweaking thing up quite often - at least on an evolutionary timescale.

David
One of the traps I think is our own conceptions limited by our individualized temporal condition. Certainly there are aspects of biology that reflect our own technological achievements, but I think that is because ultimately we are part of that cosmic mind so it should not be surprising.

Perhaps we need to fold in some spiritual ideas into the concept of evolution. Evolution basically meaning change over time.

Considering the "all" as designer. It (the all) is something that cannot be described, to speak of anything it must be in relation to something else. As soon as it is spoken of you put it in a box but a box must have something else outside of it to define it as a box. The "all" can neither be added too or taken away from. So there is no change or relative time from this perspective. It is everything that ever was and will be.

So what I'm saying is that all information is pre existing even if it has not unfolded yet. So it may not be a matter of constant tweaking or constant input of information. That would be an appearance.

Consider the seed of a fruit tree, there is barely anything to it as a seed, in the right conditions it will sprout, there are no branches or developed leaves, no bark, no fruit at first just the sprout and juvenile leaf forms, over time it grows all the pre determined attributes. Same as an embryo.

Looking at a cosmic scale, stars form in the primordial plasma swirling into galactic forms, planets moons all setting the stage for life just as the tree grows for producing fruit. Varying life forms emerge along varying lines of the varying conditions. The Earth began as a molten ball of rock, it took billions of years to cool and set the stage for singular celled organisms, making way for multi cellular forms that basically terraformed the planet creating the conditions for complex life to have a pathway.

The Cambrian hosted more phyla than exist today, Brains, nervous systems, eyes and other organs all appeared in a relatively short period of geological time only when the Earth system was capable of supporting complex life. We as late comers bring intellect, and spiritual awareness would seem to be the goal (hopefully). Perhaps we will then spread from the Earth when we are ready, like spores into the galaxy. It has probably already happened to other systems.

So perhaps not to say evolution, but an unfolding which is just the same (change over time) from our perspective.

What appears as a bottom up teleological thing from our perspective may actually be a top down expression of creation. It certainly would explain the closed loops of causality that baffle us at the very origin of life.

Here's a cute little animation summing up this concept.

To add, and to tie into the subject of the thread, I have heard many NDE reports of fields of flowers and trees in the afterlife realms, perfect and eternal, vibrant beyond those on Earth. Not that these were copies of Earthly things, just the opposite, it was the Earth that had the imitations.

This may be just a reflection of "That" within the all.

Just a few thoughts to chew on.
 
Last edited:
#72
Consider the seed of a fruit tree, there is barely anything to it as a seed, in the right conditions it will sprout, there are no branches or developed leaves, no bark, no fruit at first just the sprout and juvenile leaf forms, over time it grows all the pre determined attributes.
One reason I say that, is that it does seem to have happened. Think of the Cambrian Explosion. Endless new body plans were created and run for a while before being culled (or maybe they just failed and died out).

That suggests:

1) The designer needed to obtain some information about the viability of those lifeforms.

2) The designer only has finite brain power. He (or them) needed to do experiments to some degree - they could jud do a vast ab-initio calculation to get the answer.

On a similar theme, I am curious about the various arms races that go on in nature, where a prey species and a predator both develop new stuff to oppose each other. I think those suggest that parts of the design process are developed by distinct entities (even if they are all ultimately part of the great ultimate consciousness) - entities not too dissimilar to you and me!

David
 
#73
One reason I say that, is that it does seem to have happened. Think of the Cambrian Explosion. Endless new body plans were created and run for a while before being culled (or maybe they just failed and died out).

That suggests:

1) The designer needed to obtain some information about the viability of those lifeforms.

2) The designer only has finite brain power. He (or them) needed to do experiments to some degree - they could jud do a vast ab-initio calculation to get the answer.
You may have missed what I was clumsily trying to express. As you say this does SEEM to have happened. Seemed to have happened from a perspective inside of time and space. Inside of finiteness where finiteness exists. But we can't speak of finiteness without inferring the infinite.

If the "designer" is inside of time and space... finite... I think leads to a infinite regress situation.

On a similar theme, I am curious about the various arms races that go on in nature, where a prey species and a predator both develop new stuff to oppose each other. I think those suggest that parts of the design process are developed by distinct entities (even if they are all ultimately part of the great ultimate consciousness) - entities not too dissimilar to you and me!
Part of the game of the "all" the same ultimate consciousness playing catch me if you can with itself, and hide and go seek.

It's doing that in each and everyone of us. :)

As you know I have been totally on board with the concept of intelligent design, seems obvious really, I don't even bother with the question anymore. I am more interested in how it fits with spiritual concepts.

As you know I was the semiosis guy. I was thinking like the programmer. This aspect is still true, except now I see it as more of a great symphony, more art than science actually. It is just play for the "all". It just happens to be filled with exquisite intelligence.

It's just my evolving perspective Dave, but you know that designer exists in you right? More than that it is the true Dave, the one deep down beyond the persona of Dave, that spark that is one and the very same as the unified consciousness that I am referring to as the "all".

That sentence has far too many "Dave's". :) But this is the ultimate realization I think.
 
#74
Greetings all. I listened to the stories, I have been listening to just about every NDE ever written publicly. Let me start by saying I call myself a realist. also use a world Reincarnitiate. I have been involved in Truth at every level- Death, demons, ghosts, aliens, Bigfoot, deities, hypnosis, past-life regression , oh did I say I became aware of all my past lives. There is something very important that most people don't understand. The psychic abilities are non-existent today. The ones starting to be awakened are past-life awareness, astral projection, remote viewing, OBE. very close to NDE. The biggest difference - one you are still dealing with this reality the other the next reality. Meaning the astral world . I know for a fact after listening to case after case - the brain has to translate the information one just received. That is the most important point of the whole thing that is lacking.
It is easy to translate physical info- meaning things that exist in this reality - OBE is not very hard. NDE is walking into the astral plane not the physical. But the brain has to be able to convert the info into something it can relate to. That transforms to brain's awareness. You will say my father, my mother, an angel, Michael, Jesus, then even God. 99.9 % of all people have no clue to God. So with all that the mind translates what ever happened into something it can KIND OF UNDERSTAND.
There is more important truth to all that. Everything on earth is really not very important to SOUL true journey to the higher worlds of God. Not saying many people think the astral plane is heaven- it is not and most people will reincarnate because they did not learn anything they need to to go past or even stay in the astral plane. Dealing with anything in the physical only keeps one in the way of creating karma and another world just as dangerous attachment. That means to family and friends. Some is just things including money. But the false learning comes from religion and the other word people use now- spiritual. Many people that have any kind of experience usually come out and say they are spiritual- that even includes being abducted- by an alien.
Well I have been involved with all this since I was young and I am 68 now. Seems people are trying to become more aware - but of what. A death experience is important if one can separate the mind fro what soul is going through. But religion programs people even in sub-consciousness state, The stories are interesting but what does it really help? I do a few shows a week, one is with a woman that has been abducted and still. She has the most proof of it. Missing time should go down with NDE, OBE and AABD, - aliens abduction , I am YouTube hawksblood
 
#75
Hey Shane, I'd love to get your follow up on my response to your question. I know there's a lot going on, but I'm keen to learn what I can from you. :)

Here's the reply post: Forum-Post-Link
I must say that I hate flow charts, pie graphs, bar graphs, line graphs, etc....but your flow chart is interesting. The fact is that it would be impossible to argue that there is a reality without consciousness. However, I don't think that positing consciousness as the creator of reality is a viable solution, either. This kind of thinking leads to an ignorance of hard, everyday facts. I know that somethings have to do with nuances of vantage point, but let me use a basic example. Let us say that somebody gets "knocked unconscious" in an MMA fight. That unconscious person eventually comes to, and finally, they recognize the ring, the ref, their corner, and so fourth. Obviously, their consciousness is not creating the reality of the fight or us as observers. We also saw the point whereas they had become unconscious, i.e., knocked out! If somebody wants to be delusional and take the thought of consciousness to an extreme, they could narcissistically argue that their vantage point is the only true point of consciousness; - and even if they have observed what could be termed as a knock out of another, their own consciousness was not lost in the process.

That being said, I do not think that "material" is necessarily primary, but nor do I think that consciousness is creating material. I think that all of these are intrinsically tied together. Here is a good practical experiment: run straight into a wall, with your eyes open, while screaming and believing, "THE WALL IS NOT REAL!"

Next, cover your eyes, imagine the wall is not real, then go ahead and try again. Let us find out if our consciousness is creating the wall, or helping us to understand that there is an actual wall existing, whether we want to believe it or not.
 
#76
I must say that I hate flow charts, pie graphs, bar graphs, line graphs, etc....but your flow chart is interesting. The fact is that it would be impossible to argue that there is a reality without consciousness. However, I don't think that positing consciousness as the creator of reality is a viable solution, either. This kind of thinking leads to an ignorance of hard, everyday facts. I know that somethings have to do with nuances of vantage point, but let me use a basic example. Let us say that somebody gets "knocked unconscious" in an MMA fight. That unconscious person eventually comes to, and finally, they recognize the ring, the ref, their corner, and so fourth. Obviously, their consciousness is not creating the reality of the fight or us as observers. We also saw the point whereas they had become unconscious, i.e., knocked out! If somebody wants to be delusional and take the thought of consciousness to an extreme, they could narcissistically argue that their vantage point is the only true point of consciousness; - and even if they have observed what could be termed as a knock out of another, their own consciousness was not lost in the process.

That being said, I do not think that "material" is necessarily primary, but nor do I think that consciousness is creating material. I think that all of these are intrinsically tied together. Here is a good practical experiment: run straight into a wall, with your eyes open, while screaming and believing, "THE WALL IS NOT REAL!"

Next, cover your eyes, imagine the wall is not real, then go ahead and try again. Let us find out if our consciousness is creating the wall, or helping us to understand that there is an actual wall existing, whether we want to believe it or not.
Well that's not an argument against reality coming from consciousness, it's an argument against reality not being entirely generated by your own personal consciousness. In positions like idealism, the collective world has a consciousness behind it (like your body has a consciousness behind it) and we are conscious participants in that shared reality, we may get knocked out for a bit, but that says nothing about what underwrites our collective world.

Are there any other things you'd like to run by me?
 
#77
Well that's not an argument against reality coming from consciousness, it's an argument against reality not being entirely generated by your own personal consciousness. In positions like idealism, the collective world has a consciousness behind it (like your body has a consciousness behind it) and we are conscious participants in that shared reality, we may get knocked out for a bit, but that says nothing about what underwrites our collective world.

Are there any other things you'd like to run by me?
For sure, my friend. I don't know if this "collective world" actually exists. Yes, many people exist who are surviving, but I don't think this makes any kind of "collective world" or "unity of consciousnesses." Also, I am not a big fan of any kind of idealism.
 
#80
Great show Alex. Love Dr Bruce Greyson. I felt that the 're-focus' so to speak onto how the brain plays a part in the NDE/consciousness experience is well interesting. And how we didn't have NDE's really until the tech became available with defibs and advanced medical care etc.
 
Top