Mod+ 260. MIAMI ATTORNEY REY HERNANDEZ SUPPORTS UFO CONTACTEES

#41
Do you have any way of finding out what would be the 'mental structures that would be unlike our minds' ??
Would it be like a person you ask questions of?
Well any reasonable version of Idealism has to assume that our individual minds share a common space - probably because at some level we are one mind. Clearly mental 'stuff' can extend to all sorts of non-human possibilities. At the very least, there will be the minds of animals (and even plants?), and there may be powerful minds that run our environment - essentially as a simulation. I rather boggle at the idea that such a mind handles the quantum evolution of the entire universe, but I seriously wonder if it operates a bit like (say) flight simulator software, where distant stuff is just sketched vaguely, and then the detail gets filled in as it gets closer. Conceivably QM only operates when we go looking for it in one way or another!
It took me a book to explain: see http://www.generativescience.org/books/pnb/pnb.html

The trouble is, I'd guess your book has to start by explaining QM from scratch. Why not assume standard QM and discuss your ideas?


We have both actual physical objects and actual minds and actual spirits, and an actual Divine that we can talk to.
OK - but there has to be a link between the spirits and physical matter - how would that operate? The obvious way (IMHO) would be to propose that the mind can select the way in which a wave function collapses. There also needs to be a back-link so physical experiences get transmitted to the spirit layer.

David
 
#42
And I disagree with you (!)
Do you think it is obvious that consciousness can never create something that is outside itself?
That similarly, and conscious God can never create something outside itself?

I agree that if 'consciousness' was all we knew, that it would be doubtful.
However, I think that the foundation is love as propensity or substance, and that consciousness derives from love.
Do you think that might make a difference?
:eek:
You seem to be in a bubble of consciousness, beyond which you cannot imagine escaping.

If love is "the longing for something commonly, though erroneously, conceived of as separate", then love is essentially love of oneself. Because there is only one, by you, it must be true.

That makes it a selfish love. Is that the best moral guidance you can give to everyone: at the highest level there is only selfish love? Most people who have a daily life to life have come to the practical, moral, spiritual and even religious conclusion that unselfish love is of higher importance than selfish love. And the more one approaches the source, they find, the more unselfish they become. Witness the Buddha in the Bodhisattva form.

But not in your idealism.
:eek:
 
#43
OK - but there has to be a link between the spirits and physical matter - how would that operate? The obvious way (IMHO) would be to propose that the mind can select the way in which a wave function collapses. There also needs to be a back-link so physical experiences get transmitted to the spirit layer.

David
The link between the spirits and physical matter must be related to quantum mechanics, but much more general than selecting the way in which a wave function collapses. We should be able to work out what this link is and how it works!

I have written more about this, and given examples from known physics and psychology, in the article Discrete Degrees Within and Between Nature and Mind. I gave a talk on this at the Tucson 2008 conference: see slides here.
 
#45
Well any reasonable version of Idealism has to assume that our individual minds share a common space - probably because at some level we are one mind.
Do you mean "space" literally or figuratively, David? I say that because I tend not to view space literally, and I don't think that Idealism depends on the literal concept. "Space" could just be one of the ways we conceptualise perceived degrees of separation.
Clearly mental 'stuff' can extend to all sorts of non-human possibilities. At the very least, there will be the minds of animals (and even plants?), and there may be powerful minds that run our environment - essentially as a simulation. I rather boggle at the idea that such a mind handles the quantum evolution of the entire universe, but I seriously wonder if it operates a bit like (say) flight simulator software, where distant stuff is just sketched vaguely, and then the detail gets filled in as it gets closer. Conceivably QM only operates when we go looking for it in one way or another!
This reminds me of Tom Campbell's ideas, which IIRC point to the universe as a virtual simulation. In some respects, that's a possibly quite useful conceptualisation, but just a tad too "mechanistic" for me if you get what I mean. This is one of the objections I have to Hernandez's apparent focus on the universe as a quantum hologram: again, it may have some utility as a conceptual framework, but it tends to draw people into mathematical/physical conceptions and give those a kind of priority over the "spiritual" (for want of a better word).

The reports of people who've had profound spiritual experiences don't tend to be of this nature. They report a direct knowing or understanding of the nature of reality. They don't generally describe things in terms of mathematics or physics, though granted some who've had scientific training may, during the course of such experiences (e.g. NDEs) have had thoughts along those lines. It seems that in NDEs one can still have a certain degree of attachment to inculcated ideas and still be evaluating experiences at least partially in terms of those. And certainly, after such experiences, the conditioned mind kicks back in and may influence how they're subsequently interpreted.

As has been cogently pointed out, it's hardly likely that a UFO the size of a football pitch hovering not very far over a nearby house wouldn't have attracted the attention of many people. That doesn't mean that a genuine phenomenon of some kind didn't occur, or that several people didn't share the experience and interpret it similarly. I tend to accept that it did genuinely occur, but we're all conditioned to some extent or other, and I also believe that in some circumstances a perception can be telepathically communicated to others. If we can't explain a perceived phenomenon in ordinary, everyday terms, then we likely explain it in relation to prior experiences or concepts.

The phenomena Rey reports bear comparison with the "miracle of the sun" at Fatima:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fátima#Miracle_of_the_Sun

A huge crowd, variously estimated between 30,000 and 100,000,[9] including newspaper reporters and photographers, gathered at the Cova da Iria. The incessant rain had ceased and there was a thin layer of cloud. Lúcia, seeing light rising from the lady's hands and the sun appearing as a silver disk, called out "look at the sun". She later had no memory of saying this.[6] Witnesses later spoke of the sun appearing to change colors and rotate like a wheel.[10] Witnesses gave widely varying descriptions of the "sun's dance". Poet Afonso Lopes Vieira and schoolteacher Delfina Lopes (with her students and other witnesses in the town of Alburita), reported that the solar phenomenon was visible up to forty kilometers away.[10]

Columnist Avelino de Almeida of O Século (Portugal's most influential newspaper, which was pro-government in policy and avowedly anti-clerical),[6] reported the following: "Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws - the sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people."[11] Eye specialist Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho, writing for the newspaper Ordem reported "The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceeding fast and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat".

I have no doubt that something happened at Fatima that day, and that (in that case) a large number of people observed something that they described in similar terms. But do I believe that the sun actually did strange things? No. IMO, it was a localised phenomenon, perception of which was limited, even if reports of it being visible forty kilometres away are to be relied upon. Though it was on a larger scale than the kind of phenomenon that Rey and others perceived, it was quite possibly of a similar, numinous nature.

Where I think Rey is on to something is in associating UFO and other phenomena like NDEs, raising the possibility that they are different flavours of the same kind of thing. It's okay in my book to be putting forward interpretations in terms of physics, but for myself, I wouldn't be regarding those as literal so much as providing explanatory frameworks. The trouble is, as a species we do tend to elevate such frameworks to the status of fact rather than "mathematised allegory" if you take my meaning. A lot of us with a scientific bent are surprisingly naive when it comes to reifying what in the end are conceptual schemata. The fact that "mathematisations" can produce sometimes astonishingly accurate measurements and predictions tends to encourage us to think that accepted interpretations of the nature of reality must be literally so.

Well, in answer to that, I'd quote Ptolemaic astronomy, which relied on the idea of epicycles to explain the apparent retrograde motion of the planets. This false hypothesis (not fully disproved until Friedrich Bessel first demonstrated stellar parallax--and hence heliocentricity--in 1828) nonetheless produced results and predictions that were reasonably accurate, and could even be used today for basic navigation.

For all we know, quantum theory may be a latter-day version of Ptolemaic astronomy, despite its great accuracy and predictive power. In addition, its strangeness in relation to a more classical view of reality still confounds physicists, and there is a certain "otherworldly" aura that surrounds it, which may be why it's so often appropriated by people interested in spiritual and occult phenomena. Whether or not the association is warranted, I honestly can't say.
 
#46
Do you mean "space" literally or figuratively, David? I say that because I tend not to view space literally, and I don't think that Idealism depends on the literal concept. "Space" could just be one of the ways we conceptualise perceived degrees of separation..
That was probably a bad choice of word - I mean in the abstract - a space of information that we all draw on.
David
 
#48
Some of the papers on the website are jokes when it comes to describing the actual claims about physics.

See for example, Rudy Schild's paper "Modern Miracles and The Quantum Hologram". He might be physicist (see here), but his explanations are jokes. Worse: non-existent. I am looking for an explanation of what actually is the "quantum hologram" they all talk about (Mitchell, Lewells, Schild). I see Schild's paper has a last subsection entitled 3. What, exactly, is the Quantum Hologram? At last an explanation, I thought! But no! He waffles on about dark energy, imaginary parts to dimensions, and UFOs. But he never mentions 'holograms' again! Does he even know? Apparently not! How sad.

Mitchell, in Nature's Mind: The Quantum Hologram (p. 3), keeps on talking about the "discovery of the quantum hologram", but his main reference is to very preliminary work in 1991 by Schemp (pages 383-467 of this book) who has some wave analyses which might be applied to quantum theory, but all of whose demonstrations involve entirely classical wave motions. He has much speculation, almost as much as Peter Marcer's weird speculations in the 1990s when I knew Peter. Mitchell says (p. 11) that "Quantum Holography (QH), which we have alluded to several times above, is a recently discovered attribute of all physical matter and has been validated by experimental work with functional magnetic resonating imaging (fMRI). In his work with MRI tomography, Schempp (1999) used a mathematical formalism to expand quantum information theory." There is no evidence given for quantum holograms actually being physical. This makes me think he does not show any idea of whether a quantum hologram can actually exist in present-day experiments, or even what one actually is should it exist (I hope I am wrong here).

Swanson seems to think that if all physical processes are coherently synchronized, then that is sufficient so that consciousness 'can interact across parallel dimensions' (p.38).

I wonder if these 'quantum holograms' are really what the aliens had in mind when they told Rey about quantum mechanics being a connection between all the kinds of parapsychological and paraphysical processes!

(more later)
Ian,

In you paper that you linked to above, you write:
Many people have noted that there are several aspects of quantum mechanics which are reminiscent of mental properties. Quantum processes are indeterministic, nonlocal, and consciousness could have a role in initiating measurements. Walker (1970) and later Eccles (1977, 1989) have suggested that mental events influence or bias at least some physical outcomes within the range allowed by quantum mechanics. However, quantum mechanics makes very precise predictions for the probabilities of those outcomes, and, furthermore, the evolution of these probability distributions is completely deterministic. If there were external mental input, it would have to change the probabilities of different outcomes (Saunders, 2000 and Brecha, 2002), and hence change the probability rules of quantum physics.
Clearly anything that incorporates a link between the physical and mental realms must change the laws of physics in some way - if the mental realm does control the physical realm - however subtly - then the physical realm can't evolve in time in the same way as it would without any coupling to the mental realm.

The thing about QM is that the Schroedinger equation predicts evolution of the wave function without any collapses. Indeed the Many Worlds formulation doesn't even include the idea of collapse - you just get the whole damn lot as a multiverse (I definitely do not believe that interpretation!)! I'd say it is the Scroedinger equation that is most well tested, because it can produce time independent solutions (eigenvalues) that have precise energy levels. The Born rule for calculating probabilities could be wrong in some part of the brain that forms a link with the spiritual, and we would never know - ordinary physics would just measure the rates of collapse in the limit of no spiritual intervention.

Since I notice you are writing from a university physics department, I am curious as to whether you encounter any opposition to public discussions of the mind body problem. Possibly the taboo about this is less in a physics department, than it might be in a biology department.

David
 
Last edited:
#49
I think this idea has a lot of merit. It would explain why natural laws are simple, intelligible, mathematical relationships and why physical constants are fine-tuned to precisely those values needed for the universe to support life: because a mind conceived or is conceiving them. Mathematics can describe nature because nature is conceived by a mind, but this also makes it dubious that consciousness itself can be described by mathematical relationships (ie physics will not explain consciouses).
Yes but an all mental explanation might also include the idea of carefully chosen constants - picked to keep the simulations running smoothly!

David
 
#50
Ian,
Since I notice you are writing from a university physics department, I am curious as to whether you encounter any opposition to public discussions of the mind body problem. Possibly the taboo about this is less in a physics department, than it might be in a biology department.

David
I was a Professor in a physics department, but all these things were written as a hobby. There was not much overlap between the two worlds!
 
#51
First, I think it is important to point out that Idealism doesn't really imply a free for all. Clearly under Idealism, much of reality would be produced by mental structures that would be unlike our minds.

I think you should explain your idea in greater length. What does it mean to state that physical state 6 is wholly dependent on physical state 5, and yet is produced by the mental level?
I hope this point is further parsed.

I think Ian Thompson models this step in the following passage found within the linked work:
Actualities are not the instantaneous-present states of objects
It is sometimes considered that only the present states of objects are actual, as their future states are yet to occur and their past states are no longer operative. This avoids the objections to the previous two objections. For such actualities do not have to change yet remain the same actuality, but now new actualities are being formed successively at every moment in time. And we are not considering all future and past states to be actual in the same way as the present states, so it does appear that real changes are occurring.
This stance by Ian is counter-intuitive, especially if one is a Physicalist. The present SoA (state of affairs) for a collection of material objects at a specific space time - is seen to contain very powerful mojo for the majority of academia.
 
Last edited:
#52
I hope this point is further parsed.

I think Ian Thompson models this step in the following passage found within the linked work:

This stance by Ian is counter-intuitive, especially if one is a Physicalist. The present SoA (state of affairs) for a collection of material objects at a specific space time - is seen to contain very powerful mojo for the majority of academia.
That may be the academic mojo, but it has serious problems with both philosophy and physics.

Philosophy problem: we are talking about what actually exists as 'simply actual' and devoid of power and potentiality. In particular it has no power or capacity to stop existing. The present, by contrast, is ceasing to exist all the time! It cannot be purely actual.

Physics problem: in relativity there is no strict 'present' that is common for all observers.
And in quantum physics, what is purely actual are measurement selections or outcomes, and they only happen at times with non-zero time gaps between them. (This in contrast to classical physics, where things exist actually all the time). That means that, in the quantum world, if only the present were actual then there would not be anything actual in that present most of the time.
 
#53
I think a couple of things about all this:
-Rey’s interview is completely mind-blowing.
-That said, elements of strangeness and synchronicity abound in other accounts. Rey is interesting in that his experiences combine things in an interesting way and also have a great deal of credibility as there are multiple witnesses (his wife and daughter and others).

I think an interesting point as well:
-Here on the Skeptiko forum there are comparatively few posters about such an amazing interview. Other shows have been more lively.
-The posts that are here, are mostly about the idea of a holographic universe or quantum stuff or consciousness. The posts are great but I feel that they are mostly around the periphery of the interview.

So, all I am saying, is that I think people, even people who frequent the Skeptiko forum (who are more open to this sort of stuff) don’t know what to make of Rey’s accounts. I think there are other examples such as Nick Bunick. Nick makes amazing statements about 444 and other events but Alex doesn’t talk about these much in his Skeptiko interview with Nick. Instead he focuses in on the claim that some early Christians believed in reincarnation. This is an interesting topic but it is not the most interesting thing Nick Bunick said.

So, I am saying, I see some shying away from the heart of the matter. People just don’t know how to engage with it. We don’t know what to think (so we just move onto whatever topic we can deal with - i.e. early Christians and reincarnation or holographic universe). By the way, none of this is meant as criticism. The posts that exist on this thread are good and useful. I just saying that I don't think most of us know how to deal with somebody like Rey (or Nick Bunick and others as well).

I'm not sure how to deal with it either but I am quite sure that these personal high strangeness / synchronistic accounts are very important.

Check out Mike Clelland for more high strangeness (Skeptiko interview and also http://hiddenexperience.blogspot.co.uk/)
 

Alex

Administrator
#54
So, all I am saying, is that I think people, even people who frequent the Skeptiko forum (who are more open to this sort of stuff) don’t know what to make of Rey’s accounts.
Agreed. I think this is a very deep point. I mean, to some extent we're all stuck in our own experience... myself included. I have a hard time wrapping my head around Rey experience. At the same time, I step back and realize the same process that led my to my other beliefs has led me to believe Rey (follow the data). So what next? For me, I gotta find a way to open up to this undeniable reality -- we're engaging with other, higher forms of, consciousness.
 
#55
Agreed. I think this is a very deep point. I mean, to some extent we're all stuck in our own experience... myself included. I have a hard time wrapping my head around Rey experience. At the same time, I step back and realize the same process that led my to my other beliefs has led me to believe Rey (follow the data). So what next? For me, I gotta find a way to open up to this undeniable reality -- we're engaging with other, higher forms of, consciousness.
I'm actually not all that surprised that someone has made a connection between NDEs and UFO abductions. It only surprised me that someone came forward about it. In groups of people who have had spiritually transformative experiences (such as NDEs), it's not uncommon for people to talk about seeing UFOs, or a belief in "non human entities"... but it's kept within those groups. Someone once told me that she was OK with making public statements about talking to Jesus during her NDE, but that there were many other things which she had experienced which she felt were better kept to herself.
 

Alex

Administrator
#56
I'm actually not all that surprised that someone has made a connection between NDEs and UFO abductions. It only surprised me that someone came forward about it. In groups of people who have had spiritually transformative experiences (such as NDEs), it's not uncommon for people to talk about seeing UFOs, or a belief in "non human entities"... but it's kept within those groups. Someone once told me that she was OK with making public statements about talking to Jesus during her NDE, but that there were many other things which she had experienced which she felt were better kept to herself.
yea, cultural acceptance of religion provides cover... nothing like that exists for ET expereincers.
 
#57
Agreed. I think this is a very deep point. I mean, to some extent we're all stuck in our own experience... myself included.
For me, most of what I think is driven the accounts of the experiences of others. I do have some of my own experiences but in my case it is mixed with a 2009 event of mental illness. My mental illness has been associated with these topics and I still don't know if my "acceptance" of all this precipitated my mental illness or was a symptom of it. My experiences are very subtle unlike Rey's so I doubt their veracity yet I feel there is something in them. One example of my experiences is http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/mikes-bikes.1270/. So, even when you have some experience, it is hard to know what to think. Rey's experiences are very dramatic but I think he feels the same.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around Rey experience. At the same time, I step back and realize the same process that led my to my other beliefs has led me to believe Rey (follow the data). So what next? For me, I gotta find a way to open up to this undeniable reality -- we're engaging with other, higher forms of, consciousness.
To me the conclusion is clear. The logistics of pulling this stuff off requires God like abilities so to me it is God. I'm actually trying to write a bit of a book explaining my thoughts and experiences but even though I have worked on this for years, I still keep having a hard time with it. I have had periods where I have thought I should not write the book yet I keep coming back to wanting to write it. I am fairly determined to do it now but I think it will take many months.

I realise ascribing this stuff to God is very controversial but consider Nick Bunick's 444s (experienced by him and a great many others). There are two ways that could arise: i) patternicity (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/) precipitated by people reading Bunick and thinking about 444 ii) a genuine paranormal phenomenon. I am sure there is some patternicity yet many of the accounts are very interesting (clocks stuck on 4:44, microwave loses power and shows 4:44 etc). So, I feel it is likely that there is a genuine phenomenon and if there is a genuine phenomenon then the agent causing it is able to mould reality for a large number of people simultaneously. To me, that is a God like power so, to me, it must be God (or God's agents). Who else can handle the logistics of it?
 
#58
Someone once told me that she was OK with making public statements about talking to Jesus during her NDE, but that there were many other things which she had experienced which she felt were better kept to herself.
I find that just taking this stuff seriously is difficult to discuss with others. My wife considers it all bunk and is uncomfortable discussing it (made worse by the fact that I did have a mental illness about it) and, while I have had discussions with some friends about this, only one of them sort of understands. And, while he does have some sympathy with it, he has no interest in pursuing it himself. He is concerned with making a living. This stuff is not practical so he does not read about it. There may also be a belief that it is impossible to get to the bottom of so there is no point in trying. I understand the position but I feel compelled to try to understand this stuff. It is, of course, very difficult but I think at least some progress can be made.

I can only imagine what it must be like for someone like Rey. On the other side, he has his wife and daughter who have shared this with him. In my case there has only been one thing which has involved others and it is so small that it is easily dismissed. I'll mention it because it is funny. My wife went to watch the rugby and the tv was mysteriously on the psychic channel. It is nothing yet I know I wasn't watching the psychic channel and I don't think my children had any opportunity to have tuned into it so the event is a mystery.
 

Alex

Administrator
#59
For me, most of what I think is driven the accounts of the experiences of others. I do have some of my own experiences but in my case it is mixed with a 2009 event of mental illness. My mental illness has been associated with these topics and I still don't know if my "acceptance" of all this precipitated my mental illness or was a symptom of it.
I'm sure you're aware that this is non uncommon... and raises a bunch of questions about "mental illness" as well as about the phenomena.



To me the conclusion is clear. The logistics of pulling this stuff off requires God like abilities so to me it is God.
I don't agree. To me the evidence seems to point toward layers of consciousness... many of which are at a higher order than our own and can't be properly understood from our vantage point (i.e. with our physical hardware).

We foster a lot of dogs (a noble effort of my wife and kids, but I deserve credit for cleaning up the crap), none have learned algebra.
 
#60
I don't agree. To me the evidence seems to point toward layers of consciousness... many of which are at a higher order than our own and can't be properly understood from our vantage point (i.e. with our physical hardware).

We foster a lot of dogs (a noble effort of my wife and kids, but I deserve credit for cleaning up the crap), none have learned algebra.
Two things here:
-Yes, there are things here which we cannot understand because we have inadequate human brains. So, yes, I am a dog and I will never learn algebra.
-However, there are things we can understand and one thing that is clear to me is that certain things are being withheld from us by somebody(ies).

On your podcast (and everywhere else) everyone talks about the “positive” evidence. The things which people report (Rey’s experiences, scientific studies etc). Nobody is talking about the “negative” evidence (the things that are missing). A partial list of missing things:
-A spirit who really can’t be bothered about being mysterious and so gives loads and loads of unambiguous and specific information (just like you would get talking to a normal human being). Are there no spirits who feel this way?
-An alien who is out for a laugh and lands on the United Nations and says “take me to your leader”.
-A ghost who materialises for the cameras - every day at 9:00.
-A precognitive dreamer who get specific actionable information.
-A remote view/OBEr who can reliably give specific, verifiable information.

Why don’t we have this stuff? There are two possible answers: i) it’s tough and spirits have a hard time coming through to this world and this aliens are shy and it’s just hard and mysterious ii) somebody, in a position of knowledge and authority, is deliberately denying this stuff to us. Everybody who studies all this stuff is working from the first paradigm. That this stuff is hard and we need to study harder and collect more UFO reports and interview more podcast guests etc. Nobody stops and says - no, this is incorrect - we aren’t studying a phenomena, we are playing a GAME with somebody(ies).

Now, when I say it is “God”, I am not saying that s/he is micro-managing. It makes sense to me that there is a spirit world and that spirits come through and that there are aliens etc etc. There are layers here and multiple players. What I am saying is that there are certain ground rules that have been laid down by somebody and that these ground rules are being obeyed 100% of the time. This is why these things never break through (though, perhaps, that is changing with the NDE stuff).

So, what is all this stuff? What are the Skeptiko guests studying? We could be studying:
-remote viewing
-aliens
-spirit
etc.

But to me that is not the real point. These are specifics. To me, it is all a unified whole, a “game”, and there are three things we could be studying:
-The rules of the game.
-The construction of the game.
-Some things that are special within the game.

I reject the first idea. To me, the rules of the game are simple and ancient and summed up by the Golden Rule. That said, while the rules are simple, it is very hard to live these things... Is it the construction of the game? Are we seeing glitches in the matrix and gaining an insight into the maker of the game? Perhaps, but one thing which is clear to me is that the maker of this game is AWESOME beyond comprehension. There are no mistakes. These things we are studying are there so we can find them. They are there on purpose.

So, that leaves the third option- things that are special within the game. So, to me, Skeptiko is studying the Easter Eggs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_egg_(media)) in the game of life. And this is an amazing game and a sometimes a scary game. It is not Animal Crossing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Crossing) but it’s not Grand Theft Auto either. Somewhere in between. Finally, while I have just compared life to a video game, this is totally inadequate. I stand in awe of the whole thing.

This is why my avatar is a game piece.

So, anyway, I have now written either the introduction or the conclusion to my “book”. Thanks for precipitating this. It has helped me see what I really think more clearly. Actually, I have written similar things before but I think this version is clearer.

One more thing. All this stuff we study is the trees (the NDE tree, the experiencer tree etc) and these trees are so hard to study that we forget to take 3 steps back to try and see the forest. The forest is, of course, hard to see but there are some things there. Actually, that is what I hope is in your book :)

Sorry if this has gone off topic and has been a bit of a rant. I am sincerely interested in any thoughts you have about this. Let me also say I have not done justice to your consciousness point. I agree with it. It is an important aspect of the game. What I am trying to say though is that this game has rules. It has order. It forms a cohesive whole and so there must be a designer and my key point is that we are not studying phenomena. Again, we are not studying phenomena. Spirit communication comes from somebody. Alien experiencers experience this and not that, so there is somebody choosing what they are to experience. This is chosen and that is not. This weird thing happens and that weird thing doesn't. Somebody is deciding and that somebody seems very, very well informed. (oops - I am ranting again)
 
Top