Cherylee Black, Can NDEs Lead to Psychokinesis? |548|

You really do ask the key questions. If I could explain how consciousness interacts with the brain to produce a physiological response I'd probably win a Nobel prize. To my knowledge, the best minds are still working on this problem, and it's not strictly a matter of any one field. Nevertheless, the beauty of logic is that as you have deduced, on some level intention must be physical.

Researchers may never get to the bottom of the "how problem". By that, I mean that we can never get to the bottom of anything existential. There is always a point at which we cannot explain how something comes into being — it just does. The best we can do is plot the relationships between things and put them into their corresponding context.

For example we don't know how a conductive wire with a current running through it wrapped around a ferrite core produces a magnetic field. We just know that it does, and we've created all sorts of rules about the way the relationships between those things results in certain outcomes. But exactly why or how any of that happens on a fundamental level still boils down to the forces of nature, the existence of which remains unexplained — or at best theoretical.

So if I were to theorize on the answer to your question, I'd say that first of all, intention is a product of the brain. There's lots of evidence for this, the most convincing being that researchers have measured the neural activity of the brain when subjects are performing certain tasks, some of which are much like you describe ( simply acting to pick something up ), and the truth is that our brains start to formulate the action before we ever become aware that we are thinking it.

This is quite logical when you think about it. Fully formed thoughts ( like the intent to do something ) don't just appear suddenly in a flash fully formed. They start in a particular neuron, followed by other neurons, that follow pathways that link them all together, and at some point the result is enough connections to trigger our awareness and action. But quite literally, that decision is already made before we ever become aware of it.

The causality of intention is therefore somewhat illusory. But it's not quite that simple. The whole system involves a sort of feedback loop that takes place inside the brain in a structure known as the thalamocortical loop. I tend to favor the idea that the composition of our thoughts – what we typically think of as our conscious experience, is composed of EM fields created by the brain.

To get this across more clearly, I like to use an analogy. Suppose we have a house made entirely of bricks. Are the bricks the house? Or is the house the bricks? If the house is the bricks, why isn't a randomly arranged pile of bricks also a house? Now if we think of this house as where our thoughts reside, we can never look at a single brick and see the house, just like we can never look at single neurons and see consciousness.

But by organizing the parts in a certain way — and only in a certain way, we get the emergence of something that is greater than the sum of its parts. I hope this helps to some extent.

Oh, and while you're at it, please explain how physicalism equates with naturalism.

I made an attempt to relay the answer to that question a number of posts back. Suffice it to say, that there is no consensus among philosophers on this topic. I'm just in a particular tent in a particular camp. A good place to start looking for some related info is here - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

IOW, you can't explain. Instead, you employ diversion, obfuscation and hand-waving to support your preferred belief in physical monism.
 
IOW, you can't explain. Instead, you employ diversion, obfuscation and hand-waving to support your preferred belief in physical monism.
You missed the point. Nobody can fully explain anything on an existential level, and the hand-waving seems to be more on your part than mine. If I explain that mind-matter interaction is accomplished by a functioning brain body system, critics can constantly reduce that explanation down to the point where nobody knows the answer, but that doesn't invalidate the initial answer. It's simply moving the goalposts ever closer together to the point where the ball can't fit through. Just because someone doesn't know exactly how a TV works, doesn't mean that the conclusion that it's done electronically is wrong. IOW — We can safely determine what must be the case, even if we don't yet know how to fully explain all the details. That is the nature of both reductionism and emergentism.
 
Last edited:
I don't think "the need for an "explanation" is just as ignorant as the need for a priest" unless you cherry pick the issues in question to make it look that way. Explanations are based on our capacity to reason. A lot of real world problems get solved this way. We couldn't have built a civilization without our capacity for reason. If it weren't for our capacity to reason, we'd still be wandering around the jungle acting mostly on instinct.

Faith is another matter. Not all problems can be reasoned out, so some people turn to faith. If anything requires ignorance, it's faith. However, not all problems can be reasoned out, so sometimes faith is all we're left with. In a sense, faith is the thing that fills the void when all reason fails. Being non-religious, I tend to put my faith in other things than priests, but I guess that so long as it works, people can put their faith in whatever they want.

Anybody that has any "faith" in any book driven religion is lost as fuck to me, even if they apparently live a well adjusted life.

Let me add, though, I have faith in J Randall Murphy. I like your thoughts, G.
 
IOW, you can't explain. Instead, you employ diversion, obfuscation and hand-waving to support your preferred belief in physical monism.

The control of the flow of human excrement, via toilets, pipes, and cannels; - that drives me toward a physical monism. Isn't that we have the phrase, "Holy Shit"?

On the other hand, piss is more ethereal. It can blend with shit or any other physical phenomenon, and change color. I think that the question becomes rather, spiritually, are we more like piss or shit? Perhaps the greatest of us are like sweat and still sweet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kim
So: nothing non-physical can affect anything physical. What about an intention? I can intend to reach out and pick up a cup and, lo and behold, I reach out and pick up a cup. So I guess intention must be physical. Only, I can't see how. Please explain.

Oh, and while you're at it, please explain how physicalism equates with naturalism.
There are many writers who claim this very thing: all things are physical, the lower the vibration, the denser is the energy. So, the intention of spiritual practices, healing methods that use sound & movement, & a great range of other things is meant to raise the vibration of matter, to make it higher & finer energy. For example, Li Hongzhi said his energy field was measured by Chinese scientists who found he had measurable levels of gamma particles, muons, & an incredible range of high energy particles. He explains that as you eliminate karma or black substance from your body & replace it w/ virtue or white substance by cultivating yourself, your body's matter is gradually replaced by high energy particles.

That's a very simplified & shortened version of how his cultivation methods will benefit you. Both of his books & many of his lectures are free online at https://en.falundafa.org/. Contrary to the BS spread about him, he's not a cult leader or a "sage on the stage." I can supply a number of personal experiences that back that up.

In re: to healing methods, as another example, is the common thread of removing blockages & maximizing flow of energy or matter. whether it's blood circulation, lymphatic fluid flow, chi, prana, what have you. Li's standing exercises work on the free flow of chi through the meridians. Suzanne Sterling, whose method I've just begun to practice, works by using energetic, loosening movements, deep breathing, & sound to break up blockages & improve energy flow. She says sound moves matter. I could go on & on, but I imagine your get the idea.
 
Re: Faith in God
I believe (no pun) the best anthropomorphistic comparison to Faith in God is the practice of Faith in a lover or a companion. I like to point out that any man can spend all his money on tracking technology and/or a private investigator to follow around his lover to obtain/maintain proof that she isn't our cheating on him, or seeking love elsewhere. But inversely, the amount he invests in proof, he loses in opportunity to build a bond and faith.
The purpose of this example is to illuminate the benefit of having invested in the bond/faith instead of investing in proof.
Also, if you have proof that your lover isn't cheating, then you don't get to trust.
I believe(my heart tells me) God built our existence with the purpose of letting us learn to trust It/Him/Whatever, and to learn to trust that Good is actually Good - not simply "optimal"... And I don't believe that would be possible if proof existed.
 
Last edited:
I finally formulated an explanation for what I think our experience of consciousness is:

God = The infinite source. What Bernardo Kastrup refers to as the origin of consciousness that encompasses all of it.

Our Higherselves = God's Spirit Children. Existing on a higher plane and tapped into our/their personal human incarnations like as if wearing a VR Headset. Non-physical / Do not exist according to Earth Science.

Our Human Consciousness - A combination of Awareness and Universal Interconnectedness which any/every conscious being has. Physical / Exists according to science.

I believe there's a connection between our Higherselves and our Human Consciousnesses, but I believe it (that connection) is Non-physical / Does not exist according to Earth Science.
I imagine you'd really enjoy The Ascended Masters w/ RJ Spina on New Thinking Allowed
 
Such dreams just prove how powerful the mind is at creating such realistic imagery — though completely fictional. Still, the correlation between some dreams and real-world events is too uncanny to ignore. Something else is going on sometimes, even if we don't know for sure what it is.
I don't see how that follows at all.
1) This specific dream record has no elements specific to "realism" or "realistic imagery". Not that it wasn't realistic but there isn't enough data in the record I presented to conclude that it was. I have many other dreams that are so hyper real that it is a major feature of the dreams and the record I made of them.
2) Your use of the expression, "How powerful the mind is at creating" supposes that "the mind" creates dreams. That is, there is no other explanation for them. Based on my extensive research, there is good reason to believe that many dreams cannot be "created by the mind".
3) I left the Hitler dream out of my book on dreams because a friend suggested it would be too divisive. The idea my friend expressed was that Hitler was so evil that many readers would be offended that my dream did not portray him as irredeemably evil, or as suffering from grotesque and well-deserved punishments. You suggested such a punishment, as if you knew what kind of punishment was appropriate for a personality like Hitler.

I posted the dream here because your comment created an opportunity to test my friend's theory: that Hitler is such a polarizing figure that it would be difficult or impossible to read my dream in isolation from one's own preconceptions.

Before I go further, I should introduce myself, against the possibility you don't know my background. I have a long history of psi, most of which is in the form of dream-related psi. It also includes psychokinesis, spontaneous healing, clairvoyance/seeing ghosts, etc. Some of this can be confirmed by Cherylee. Some years ago, I wrote a book about my dream research. I then started writing research papers on the subject for peer-reviewed journals, and then I earned a research PhD at King's College, London (the school where DNA was first mapped by Watson and Crick, in case you didn't know). As it stands today, though I am not the most prolifically published dream researcher, I may have the world's largest collection of single source dream records to study.

My dream of Hitler is consistent with what I have read in the reincarnation literature (see Ian Stevenson, Erlendur Harraldsson, Antonia Mills, and others). It is also consistent with what I have read on the subject of NDEs. On top of that, it is consistent with other dreams of mine that convincingly contain psi content. That is, not "created by the mind".

This does not mean that I am claiming the Hitler dream is an accurate description of his death and subsequent reincarnation in a Russian family. However, it is not implausible either. Based on the reincarnation research, it is fair to conclude that reincarnation is a genuine phenomena. Therefore, it is not impossible or implausible that Hitler would reincarnate.

Based on the NDE literature, some of which contain veridical elements, our waking notions of justice can be very different from what is experienced by those who have had such experiences. If anything, NDE experiences instruct us that defective spiritual characteristics are corrected over time and many incarnations for the purpose of enhancing one's knowledge, wisdom, and benevolence. In that context, the idea of Hitler being given an opportunity to learn from his prior mistakes makes sense. Again, based on the NDE literature, the items described in my Hitler dream are neither implausible or impossible.

To be clear, nothing I have written should be taken as an endorsement of Hitler or any of the people who helped him. The actions of that group of people were immoral, depraved, reprehensible, indecent, and without justification.

Having said all that, as much as any one of us would like to fantasize about how we would punish Hitler if the chance arose, it may be the case that on a spiritual level, "punishment" is either irrelevant or quite different from anything we can imagine.

Reincarnation is a very powerful concept. All by itself, it eliminates all boundaries of race, creed, sex, nationality, religion, etc. If reincarnation is real, you can say goodbye to the idea that any given group is better than another because the next thing you know, you might be a member of that group. Since "you" are your spirit, not the body you inhabit, the body is irrelevant to your spiritual and intellectual accomplishments.

I am quite busy at the moment so I can't give a long series of relevant examples but will say this much: If my dreams have taught me anything, it is the power of righteousness and forgiveness. Not that either is easy but they are both powerful. In Hitler's case, I have no doubt that his after life review was horrendous for him. Blanking his memory of it for his subsequent life, would have been extraordinarily merciful but necessary for his correction.
 
I don't see how that follows at all.
1) This specific dream record has no elements specific to "realism" or "realistic imagery".
My comment was about how convincing dreams can be regardless of whatever the perceptions were. So whatever the content of your dreams were that affected you so profoundly, it only goes to show the power of the mind
Not that it wasn't realistic but there isn't enough data in the record I presented to conclude that it was. I have many other dreams that are so hyper real that it is a major feature of the dreams and the record I made of them.
Now you're contradicting yourself. Or perhaps you're misinterpreting what I meant. I meant realistic as in photorealistic but not necessarily a reflection of objective reality.
2) Your use of the expression, "How powerful the mind is at creating" supposes that "the mind" creates dreams. That is, there is no other explanation for them. Based on my extensive research, there is good reason to believe that many dreams cannot be "created by the mind".
Perhaps that depends on what you mean by "mind" as opposed to what I mean by "mind". That might be a longer discussion. Suffice it to say, that I don't know of any evidence for dreams that has has been relayed by anyone who doesn't have a mind, and that every case of a reported dream that I know of has been relayed by a person with a mind in which the said dream was experienced. But maybe you know of some verifiable exception someplace?
3) I left the Hitler dream out of my book on dreams because a friend suggested it would be too divisive. The idea my friend expressed was that Hitler was so evil that many readers would be offended that my dream did not portray him as irredeemably evil, or as suffering from grotesque and well-deserved punishments. You suggested such a punishment, as if you knew what kind of punishment was appropriate for a personality like Hitler.

I posted the dream here because your comment created an opportunity to test my friend's theory: that Hitler is such a polarizing figure that it would be difficult or impossible to read my dream in isolation from one's own preconceptions.
Well — it's hard to find a more divisive platform than Internet discussion forums. They're not as active these days as the text messaging apps, but with those, you can't really get into anything of depth. Why Elon decided to invest in Twitter is beyond me. He could have setup something really great. Who knows? Maybe he still will setup something independent with more substance.
Before I go further, I should introduce myself, against the possibility you don't know my background. I have a long history of psi, most of which is in the form of dream-related psi. It also includes psychokinesis, spontaneous healing, clairvoyance/seeing ghosts, etc. Some of this can be confirmed by Cherylee. Some years ago, I wrote a book about my dream research. I then started writing research papers on the subject for peer-reviewed journals, and then I earned a research PhD at King's College, London (the school where DNA was first mapped by Watson and Crick, in case you didn't know). As it stands today, though I am not the most prolifically published dream researcher, I may have the world's largest collection of single source dream records to study.
Impressive. Alex should invite you on the show. I'd love to hear you talk about some of this stuff.
My dream of Hitler is consistent with what I have read in the reincarnation literature (see Ian Stevenson, Erlendur Harraldsson, Antonia Mills, and others). It is also consistent with what I have read on the subject of NDEs. On top of that, it is consistent with other dreams of mine that convincingly contain psi content. That is, not "created by the mind".
I think you need to elaborate on the "not created by the mind" claim. Because given my definition of "mind", that doesn't seem possible.
This does not mean that I am claiming the Hitler dream is an accurate description of his death and subsequent reincarnation in a Russian family. However, it is not implausible either. Based on the reincarnation research, it is fair to conclude that reincarnation is a genuine phenomena. Therefore, it is not impossible or implausible that Hitler would reincarnate.
You would need to elaborate on what you mean by "reincarnation", because there's the general attitude that it is a continuity of personhood of the deceased that manifests itself as a living person who is deemed to be reincarnated. That type of reincarnation is impossible. At best, the evidence indicates that the only thing that is happening is an unexplained transfer of memory data. However that is far from being a continuity of personhood.
Based on the NDE literature, some of which contain veridical elements, our waking notions of justice can be very different from what is experienced by those who have had such experiences. If anything, NDE experiences instruct us that defective spiritual characteristics are corrected over time and many incarnations for the purpose of enhancing one's knowledge, wisdom, and benevolence. In that context, the idea of Hitler being given an opportunity to learn from his prior mistakes makes sense. Again, based on the NDE literature, the items described in my Hitler dream are neither implausible or impossible.
None of that makes any coherent sense other than in the context of learning from history. It doesn't support the notion of continuity of personhood at all.
To be clear, nothing I have written should be taken as an endorsement of Hitler or any of the people who helped him. The actions of that group of people were immoral, depraved, reprehensible, indecent, and without justification.
I get that.
Having said all that, as much as any one of us would like to fantasize about how we would punish Hitler if the chance arose, it may be the case that on a spiritual level, "punishment" is either irrelevant or quite different from anything we can imagine.
I think you'd need to elaborate on what you mean by "spiritual", because from what I can tell it's indistinguishable from psychological well being. The idea of afterlives, ghosts, etc, is either fiction or misperception. I don't just mean simple misperception either, like mistaking shadows moving across the wall for apparitions. I mean like illusions that look exactly like they are described, but aren't what they're interpreted to be.
Reincarnation is a very powerful concept. All by itself, it eliminates all boundaries of race, creed, sex, nationality, religion, etc. If reincarnation is real, you can say goodbye to the idea that any given group is better than another because the next thing you know, you might be a member of that group. Since "you" are your spirit, not the body you inhabit, the body is irrelevant to your spiritual and intellectual accomplishments.
Reincarnation might be powerful as a concept in some ways, but as I defined it above, it's not possible for it to be an objectively real process. I hope you see that. If you don't, then you've got a lot more reflecting to do. It ends where you can explain how it's possible for any afterworld version of a person to be anything more than a copy of the original world person. If you cannot do that, then there is no way for reincarnation as people typically think of it to be possible. If you can theorize some possible way — I'm listening.
I am quite busy at the moment so I can't give a long series of relevant examples but will say this much: If my dreams have taught me anything, it is the power of righteousness and forgiveness. Not that either is easy but they are both powerful. In Hitler's case, I have no doubt that his after life review was horrendous for him. Blanking his memory of it for his subsequent life, would have been extraordinarily merciful but necessary for his correction.
I believe that dreams can be very powerful — even mysterious. Here's one for you:

Today I was in a dream where I was complaining to some deceased people that the place we were staying in ( in the dream ) was not to my liking, and that I wanted my own place ( in the real world ) back because it is better. One of them said, We can't talk about that right now because the phone is going to ring. I looked down, and on the end table ( in the dream ) there was an old style burgundy push button touch tone phone, which rang at exactly the same time as the phone next to my bed ( in the real world ) — a very strange coincidence ?

So, we've heard of phone calls from the dead, but this was in reverse. I was in the realm of the dead and got a phone call from the living :) . In no way do I think I was actually in some afterworld realm. I think it was all on a stage inside my living mind. But it's hard not to attach some extra meaning to that sort of event.
 
Last edited:
I looked down, and on the end table ( in the dream ) there was an old style burgundy push button touch tone phone, which rang at exactly the same time as the phone next to my bed ( in the real world ) — a very strange coincidence ?

I've had these types of experiences in dreams often and can totally relate to the puzzlement that follows, because how is it possible that the mind/brain/whatever displays a phone in a dream which then rings in real life, if dreams are simply just images created for no reason?

I've had it with doorbells, car horns, and other things, where the object is displayed in my dream, and a few seconds later (or what seems to be a second later), the object in real life will do it's thing, into my dream, and connect with that realm.

Strange stuff!
 
My comment was about how convincing dreams can be regardless of whatever the perceptions were. So whatever the content of your dreams were that affected you so profoundly, it only goes to show the power of the mind

I don't get where the word "convincing" comes into play here. The same thing goes for "affected you so profoundly". I think it is an interesting dream because of the idea it presents: that Hitler was given an opportunity to improve himself as a spirit in a subsequent incarnation. That isn't a profound effect on me, though it would be for Hitler, assuming the scenario presented is accurate. As for the power of "the mind", also don't see where that is related here or why this dream would illustrate the idea better than any other dream.

Now you're contradicting yourself. Or perhaps you're misinterpreting what I meant. I meant realistic as in photorealistic but not necessarily a reflection of objective reality.
This is another mystery response. I have a feeling we define our words differently. As for "photorealism", as a photographer and art collector who once had an enormous Photorealist painting in my collection, I can tell you that "photorealism" is not realistic in any but the most limited sense. I am being picky here but the idea that something is "realistic" because of the way it looks to the eye isn't a satisfying justification to me. There is more to reality than visual perception and dreams often contain more than visual information.

Perhaps that depends on what you mean by "mind" as opposed to what I mean by "mind". That might be a longer discussion. Suffice it to say, that I don't know of any evidence for dreams that has has been relayed by anyone who doesn't have a mind, and that every case of a reported dream that I know of has been relayed by a person with a mind in which the said dream was experienced. But maybe you know of some verifiable exception someplace?

The conventional use of the word "mind" is brain-based. That is, however it is defined, it depends on a physical brain. The metaphysical definition of "mind" is based on a spirit capable of thinking, where "mind" is the thinking component of the spiritual experience. The way you used it sounded like the brain-based version of "mind".

Well — it's hard to find a more divisive platform than Internet discussion forums. They're not as active these days as the text messaging apps, but with those, you can't really get into anything of depth. Why Elon decided to invest in Twitter is beyond me. He could have setup something really great. Who knows? Maybe he still will setup something independent with more substance.

If free speech could be re-instated, that would be a huge improvement. I am one of the millions who was banned early last year. I've since deleted my accounts on FB, IG, YT, and Twitter.

Impressive. Alex should invite you on the show. I'd love to hear you talk about some of this stuff.

I have already been a guest on the show several times, including a recent appearance a couple months ago. I have also guest hosted a few episodes with Dr. Stanley Kripper, Erlendur Harraldsson, and Robert Waggoner.

You would need to elaborate on what you mean by "reincarnation", because there's the general attitude that it is a continuity of personhood of the deceased that manifests itself as a living person who is deemed to be reincarnated. That type of reincarnation is impossible. At best, the evidence indicates that the only thing that is happening is an unexplained transfer of memory data. However that is far from being a continuity of personhood.

Here you make it clear that you cannot discuss this subject. At least, not until you are capable of reviewing and understanding evidence that undermines your position. Maybe you've seen the same evidence I have but came to a different conclusion. That is possible but it wouldn't match my observations of people who disbelieve in the reality of reincarnation.

What I have seen is, at best, a willingness to superficially read a tiny portion of the available data without meaningfully engaging with it. The superficial engagement I have seen usually does not involve going straight to the source material. Instead, it starts from a position of extreme prejudice in an article written by a critic of psi, someone like James Randi, who then guides the reader through a deceptive summary of the source material. That then becomes the basis for saying that the evidence has been looked at and understood but in reality, the evidence has not been looked at because the guided tour alters the evidence beyond recognition.

Sometimes, readers go from the Randi-like material to the source data but only to the specific portions extracted and mangled by the critique they read, thus leaving a distorted view of the material.

Personally, I think the best way to understand the subject of reincarnation is to look at any of Dr. Ian Stevenson's books on the subject. Most are written for an academic audience but he has a couple of general appeal volumes of collected cases, such as "Children Who Remember Past Lives" and "20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation" that are good introductions to the subject. Jim Tucker wrote an excellent biography of Stevenson titled "Old Soul" that provides valuable insight into Stevenson's methodology.

As far as reincarnation being "impossible", we disagree. From my perspective, there is no mechanical difference between incarnation and reincarnation. If reincarnation didn't happen, it wouldn't be due to any kind of mechanical "impossibility" but a permissions issue, where, for instance, God did not permit it. Based on evidence however, that doesn't appear to be the case.

In case you wonder why I consider incarnation and reincarnation to be functionally identical, here is why: "Incarnation" is the joining of an immortal spirit with a physical body. "Reincarnation" is the joining of an immortal spirit with a physical body. This presumes the existence of a spirit that is separate from the physical body and that the spirit does not perish. The first of these assumptions has ample evidence to indicate it is true. The second is less well established but is consistent enough that it applies to reincarnation cases well enough. That is, whether or not a spirit is truly "immortal" they survive long enough to leave traces across vast periods of time from a human perspective.

None of that makes any coherent sense other than in the context of learning from history. It doesn't support the notion of continuity of personhood at all.

We disagree on this. At its heart, we can't agree unless you accept the idea that spirits exist. If you read the NDE literature with a face value interpretation, it suggests exactly what I describe in my previous comment.

I think you'd need to elaborate on what you mean by "spiritual", because from what I can tell it's indistinguishable from psychological well being. The idea of afterlives, ghosts, etc, is either fiction or misperception. I don't just mean simple misperception either, like mistaking shadows moving across the wall for apparitions. I mean like illusions that look exactly like they are described, but aren't what they're interpreted to be.

This is the primary stumbling block in our short conversation here. Long ago, I realized that short a direct experience of some kind, skeptics are unlikely to change their mind on this. For that reason, I no longer make a serious effort to explain these things to people who obviously aren't interested. That said, I am happy to drop hints now and then, as long as it doesn't take too long to do so. In my case, I hate to say, I was a die hard atheist and psi-skeptic until long after I'd had multiple strong psi experiences myself. That is to say, one direct experience was not enough to convince me of anything, nor two, three, or the many I experienced before I finally realized that something "impossible" was going on. My prejudice against psi, the supernatural, and the concept of God was so great that it prevented me from understanding what I experienced directly over a period of many years.

Reincarnation might be powerful as a concept in some ways, but as I defined it above, it's not possible for it to be an objectively real process. I hope you see that. If you don't, then you've got a lot more reflecting to do. It ends where you can explain how it's possible for any afterworld version of a person to be anything more than a copy of the original world person. If you cannot do that, then there is no way for reincarnation as people typically think of it to be possible. If you can theorize some possible way — I'm listening.

Not to mock you but my reaction to this section of your response was to be amused. It has a condescending tone that I well understand from my days of thinking I understood the subject better than all those nutty people who believed in psi--for no good reason as far as I could tell. How different things become after experiencing some of these things yourself. You may want to look up my book, "Dreamer" on Amazon. I wrote it in part to save me the trouble of writing the same things over and over again in the Skeptiko forum.

As for your comment about "how reincarnation can be possible", I think I've already explained that. However, it sounds like your world view doesn't include the possibility that spirits are real. Therefore, from your perspective, reincarnation must not be genuine because it depends on the existence of a spirit. Extrapolated, I would say your issue is not with reincarnation but the existence of spirit. Unless you can consider that as a real possibility, nothing related to psi makes any sense, nor even "coherent sense" as you put it. This is because all psi is dependent on the existence of spirit. I am unaware of any exceptions to this. In case you wonder about some kind of physical connection (like electricity) that allows telepathy, I don't think that's how it works. From my perspective, it is the way spirits communicate, period. When we experience telepathy, it is spirit to spirit communication, not "mind to mind".

I believe that dreams can be very powerful — even mysterious. Here's one for you:

Today I was in a dream where I was complaining to some deceased people that the place we were staying in ( in the dream ) was not to my liking, and that I wanted my own place ( in the real world ) back because it is better. One of them said, We can't talk about that right now because the phone is going to ring. I looked down, and on the end table ( in the dream ) there was an old style burgundy push button touch tone phone, which rang at exactly the same time as the phone next to my bed ( in the real world ) — a very strange coincidence ?

So, we've heard of phone calls from the dead, but this was in reverse. I was in the realm of the dead and got a phone call from the living :) . In no way do I think I was actually in some afterworld realm. I think it was all on a stage inside my living mind. But it's hard not to attach some extra meaning to that sort of event.
Sounds like the spirits told you that you were about to wake up because your phone was ringing. For that reason, they couldn't talk with you any more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
I've had these types of experiences in dreams often and can totally relate to the puzzlement that follows, because how is it possible that the mind/brain/whatever displays a phone in a dream which then rings in real life, if dreams are simply just images created for no reason?

I've had it with doorbells, car horns, and other things, where the object is displayed in my dream, and a few seconds later (or what seems to be a second later), the object in real life will do it's thing, into my dream, and connect with that realm.

Strange stuff!

Indeed. It was a very Matrix like experience. Kinda makes you wonder.
 
Sounds like the spirits told you that you were about to wake up because your phone was ringing. For that reason, they couldn't talk with you any more.
I was in a lucid dreaming state. They told me the phone was going to ring about 2 or 3 seconds before it rang, so it wasn't ringing before I heard it. So I dunno how to explain it other than as sheer coincidence — or if PSI is involved, maybe some sort of telepathic connection with the caller that clued me in to her intention before she finished dialing the call. I don't think it was precognitive, because like afterlives, precognition isn't possible the way people typically think of it.
 
Last edited:
precognition isn't possible the way people typically think of it.

Again, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. All on my own, my dream journal records are quantitatively equal to the majority of such evidence in the psi literature combined. Hard to believe until you've seen it yourself a few hundred times.
 
Again, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. All on my own, my dream journal records are quantitatively equal to the majority of such evidence in the psi literature combined. Hard to believe until you've seen it yourself a few hundred times.
It's not that I'm saying there isn't evidence. I'm saying that if we define precognition as was stated, then the way the evidence is being interpreted must be in error. People seem to think that because I say afterlives and time travel along with the related phenomena are impossible, in the way they are often thought of, that I'm denying that the phenomena ( whatever it actually is ) is something genuine. That's not the case.

What the case is, is that seeing an apparition of one's dead grandmother doesn't justify leaping to therefore there are afterlives. Same goes for dreams and and whatever other "evidence" you want to include. Also, simply disagreeing without explaining why you disagree, and calling my position condescending, isn't valid counterpoint.

Go ahead and call that condescending too if you want, but so far as I'm concerned, that's just a cop-out. When someone cannot provide valid counterpoint and starts relying on personality attacks, the discussion is over for me. Maybe someone else will be interested.
 
Last edited:
It's not that I'm saying there isn't evidence. I'm saying that if we define precognition as was stated, then the way the evidence is being interpreted must be in error. People seem to think that because I say afterlives and time travel along with the related phenomena are impossible, in the way they are often thought of, that I'm denying that the phenomena ( whatever it actually is ) is something genuine. That's not the case.

What the case is, is that seeing an apparition of one's dead grandmother doesn't justify leaping to therefore there are afterlives. Same goes for dreams and and whatever other "evidence" you want to include. Also, simply disagreeing without explaining why you disagree, and calling my position condescending, isn't valid counterpoint.

Go ahead and call that condescending too if you want, but so far as I'm concerned, that's just a cop-out. When someone cannot provide valid counterpoint and starts relying on personality attacks, the discussion is over for me. Maybe someone else will be interested.

Actually, I suggested you look at my book. That is not the same as disagreeing without explanation because I've told you where you can find the explanation. You could also listen to the several times I've been a guest on Skeptiko or other programs (though I like the Skeptiko episodes the most), or read my research papers. It is more efficient for you to do that than for me to write out the material here, which would be redundant. Check out my articles by clicking on this link. Navigate to articles to skip all the book chapters from my textbooks on computer graphics. I also suggested you look at the books of Ian Stevenson and his various colleagues. Your questions aren't going to be answered in the sound bites possible on this forum. To understand these issues, you'll have to do some careful reading of research.
 
Last edited:
I think I see the crux of this dispute and can solve:
-Evidence of Afterlife Phenomena - Confirmed. See ample resources.
-Evidence of Afterlife - Non-confirmable / Does not exist in our physical realm.

This conclusion is tentative and speculation on my part, having reviewed/listened to much but not nearly all of the appropriate material, and my personal research continues. That said, I think it demonstrates those two concepts as being separate and as having been improperly juxtaposed in the previous dispute.
(Please award 10 points for unnecessary but accurate use of the word juxtaposed.)
 
Last edited:
It's not that I'm saying there isn't evidence. I'm saying that if we define precognition as was stated, then the way the evidence is being interpreted must be in error.
No! Another possibility is that the reality we assume is just too naive!

Although you 'liked' my earlier post about why I don't trust science anymore, you never answered what I wrote (however earlier you explained that you 'like' posts directed at you that aren't offensive!):

https://www.skeptiko-forum.com/thre...es-lead-to-psychokinesis-548.4817/post-161742

David
 
You missed the point. Nobody can fully explain anything on an existential level.

I could try to address this, but it would take too long. In any case, I don't need to because it has been addressed already in the analytic idealism of Bernardo Kastrup. I do not know how much, if anything, of his you have read/viewed. For a detailed outline of the whole system, you could take his (free) course on the Essentia foundation. If you have less time, I would suggest one video of his:


Here, he addresses a lot of the objections to idealism. I can lead the horse to water, but I can't make it drink. Maybe Bernardo would fare better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
Just finished watching Undone Season 2 on Amazon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undone_(TV_series)

I'm happy to report that this show is equally as good as The OA, which I wasn't expecting it could be. Undone Season 1 was awesome, but I assumed it was gonna be a one-season-wonder. But not even close. It's great. and I highly suggest anyone who might be interested to go watch the whole thing both seasons. If you're even remotely into the woo / manifestation / timelines idea exploration, this show does it magnificently. My gf was crying for the entire last episode, and not cuz it's like gooey, but rather they went deeep.

Regards!

Season 1 trailer
Season 2 trailer
 
Back
Top