Reductionism And Materialism Are Not Scientific Givens

[badpuppy]

Yet to pretend anything someone won't personally post on a public forum for you isn't real,

 

I don't pretend anything. I'm just bluntly telling you what I and others think of the cop out you offered.

 

Your analogy with sex is what is called equivocating, btw. You are free to think what you want, but don't get offended if you hint that you think something and then play coy when asked what it is on a public forum. That's all I'm saying.

 

Fair enough, but it's not a cop out. I already KNOW the path my "explanations" would lead down. Since I don't care what you believe, I don't feel compelled to debate my personal perceptions with you. They aren't up for debate because they are my perceptions. You, also, are free to your own.

 

I didn't play coy. You simply assumed that somehow all my life experiences were open to question by you. I set a boundary and said no. That's all.

[badpuppy]

 

I'll state my thoughts to this. Self-aware consciousness arose within the Universe in our species. Consciousness is seen in other species, with or without a brain, I'll add. Consciousness is experience in lower and higher levels of awareness. It is a constant that arises out of the 'fabric' of the Cosmos. It is immaterial in its nature, despite its apparent "fusion" with the material. It continues to be opened into despite the death of the body, from age to age, depth to depth. It is part of this universe and will continue to be so after we die in our bodies. It is in you, it is in me.

 

Ugh. I'm starting to become irritated that I can't +1 you again!

[Vigile]

I don't feel compelled to debate my personal perceptions with you.

 

Ok, but for the record, I wasn't planning on debating you. As I told you, I respect that you don't wish to debate the issue. I like to debate so I can learn, but only if it's mutual.

[badpuppy]

I don't feel compelled to debate my personal perceptions with you.

 

Ok, but for the record, I wasn't planning on debating you. As I told you, I respect that you don't wish to debate the issue. I like to debate so I can learn, but only if it's mutual.

 

Okay. Sorry for the assumption. It's still personal but yes, I assumed that there would be a "neener neener that doesn't prove anything" at the end of it, which would have made the whole thing more pointless.

[Ouroboros]

Fair enough on all points.

Awesome.

[Ouroboros]

Fair enough, but it's not a cop out. I already KNOW the path my "explanations" would lead down. Since I don't care what you believe, I don't feel compelled to debate my personal perceptions with you. They aren't up for debate because they are my perceptions. You, also, are free to your own.

That's why I rarely discuss any Christian's experience either. I think that a person's belief based on his or her experience is valid, at least in the sense of it's valid for the person to believe whatever they believe. Experience is usually not up for debate. So I agree with you.

 

The times I get worked up in a "reductionist" frenzy is when some Christian (or believer of other kind) argues that there are logical or rational reasons to why they believe, like some proof or argument. Because then it has left the "experience" box and gone into the "reasoning" box. And anything in the "reasoning" box is up for grabs for debate, discussion, and asking "why".

[Ouroboros]

I assumed that there would be a "neener neener that doesn't prove anything" at the end of it,

That is one of the more annoying attributes of us "reductionists." I have a son who is like me, and it's quite irritating when he's right and I'm wrong... He doesn't mind rubbing it in when I can't refute his claim. Hence, some topics are just better to avoid.

[badpuppy]

I assumed that there would be a "neener neener that doesn't prove anything" at the end of it,

That is one of the more annoying attributes of us "reductionists." I have a son who is like me, and it's quite irritating when he's right and I'm wrong... He doesn't mind rubbing it in when I can't refute his claim. Hence, some topics are just better to avoid.

 

hahahaha.

[VacuumFlux]

But.... here's comes the big butt! Again, back to the mental-phenomenal world. Mind to matter understanding through models of the objetive world is realitively simple by comparison to looking at the subjective realities of human experience and knowing. This is an hermenutic affair, nothing that the tools of math would apply to. There, in that domain of reality you have to have other models of reality to to lead to some undestanding. They are going to be far less precise than math, because the physical world follows pretty set patterns and rules. NOT SO, with the mental world!

 

The trap in our Western science-infatuated mindset it to imagine the sucesses of science in the natural world will also answer truth in all these other human domains! This is what I mean by reductionsism. It tries to reduce understanding reality to a monological gaze of everything as some object in nature, like looking at a rock. The mental domain is incredibly more freed to evolve and change than the physical domains. Yes, there are predictable patterns that can emerge, but those can quickly be broken and defy any sort of "laws" like you may see in the material world. You create models, which you yourself use in the stock market, but they are far less stable that say math is in calculating a tragetory through space given realitively stable gravitational forces.

 

If I'm understanding the attitudes expressed in this thread, people with a personality that leans towards reductionism like to take things apart, to examine each component, in order to understand them. Is this supposed to be impossible when trying to understand mental states? I can certainly say that the patterns I find inside my own head won't necessary hold true inside someone else's head, but I get the same feeling of ripping things apart to look inside when I'm exploring mental states. I can't always reduce it to words, and certainly not to math, but I can discover patterns of related thoughts/feelings. I can say to myself "I feel stressed, and want to feel in control", and then leave words behind and go the part of me that is inclined to order, and just relax and let it work, watch it work, and then when I come back to things with words it's all cleaned up. Or if I'm meditating just so that I can understand myself better, then I tune out the external world and just start observing/gathering data on my internal world. I don't see reductionistic thinking and experiential reality as opposites; I call them gathering data and analyzing data. Sometimes my reductionistic tendencies lead me to stop analyzing and just experience, because there's nothing to analyze until I gather more data. I also get really stressed out if I've absorbed too much experience without the analytical step, because it's all this noise sitting in the mid-term memory queue, and I need to spend some quiet time pulling out memories, digesting them, and repackaging them for long-term storage before I can absorb any new information.

[Legion]

Mathmatics is a subjective, symbolic language used to create models of objective reality.

Mathematics as you have pointed out is language. And language is something of a mystery. However math is transparent in a way that natural language could never be. Mathematics is used for many things. And it is a remarkable fact that among these uses is its ability to model nature.

 

What I'm sensing here is a slight mischaracterization of math, and a lack of appreciation for its potential.

[Antlerman]

Mathmatics is a subjective, symbolic language used to create models of objective reality.

Mathematics as you have pointed out is language. And language is something of a mystery. However math is transparent in a way that natural language could never be. Mathematics is used for many things. And it is a remarkable fact that among these uses is its ability to model nature.

 

What I'm sensing here is a slight mischaracterization of math, and a lack of appreciation for its potential.

Not necessarily. I do recognize that math is the language of science because of the problem with cultural conotations in the meanings of spoken languages. Math is a very precise langauge. But it is itself not objective reality. Pi doesn't exist to a dolphin.

[Legion]

I do recognize that math is the language of science because of the problem with cultural conotations in the meaning of words.

I think math is a part of the set of languages which science employs. And I don't believe it's because of cultural connotations. We can have a solid hope of understanding what goes on within a formal language and why.

 

Math is a very precise langauge.

It's not as precise as some may believe. Godel comes to mind here.

 

But it is itself not objective reality.

Ah, no it's not. However we only know of two kinds of systems of entailment. Natural systems and formal systems. To discount formal systems as a place where exploration can occur is to be blind in my assesment.

 

Pi doesn't exist to a dolphin.

Maybe not, but they have song. And Pythagoras would have been pleased I think.

[Ouroboros]

It's not as precise as some may believe. Godel comes to mind here.

Agree.

 

I realized that now after the last calculus class. There's a bit of intuition and ingenuity too. Trying to pick the right method of finding if a sum is divergent or convergent? Divergence test? Limit comparison? Integration test? There's a bunch of them, and given an equation, there are many ways how it can be done, and some are better than others... And let's not talk about limits and L'Hopitals rule.

 

My son is now in differential equations, and they got to know that they'll be given problems on the tests they can't solve. The trick will be to recognize when they can't.

[Vigile]

But it is itself not objective reality. Pi doesn't exist to a dolphin.

 

Two apples, two pieces of sand, Pi, all exist whether the dolphin recognizes them or not. As I pointed out above, an engineer who makes up his own mathmatical reality will build bridges and buildings that colapse.

 

I absolutely cannot see how it can be argued this is not representative of objective reality. (I'll be traveling, so won't be around to discuss this for a few days)

[Legion]

It's not as precise as some may believe. Godel comes to mind here.

Agree.

 

I realized that now after the last calculus class. There's a bit of intuition and ingenuity too. Trying to pick the right method of finding if a sum is divergent or convergent? Divergence test? Limit comparison? Integration test? There's a bunch of them, and given an equation, there are many ways how it can be done, and some are better than others... And let's not talk about limits and L'Hopitals rule.

 

My son is now in differential equations, and they got to know that they'll be given problems on the tests they can't solve. The trick will be to recognize when they can't.

I've forgotten more calculus than I ever care to relearn. But yeah, most systems of differential equations can't be solved. My big push these days are categories. Categories are simultaneously foundational and advanced. It was established during 1942-45 via advanced considerations in algebraic topology, but at the same time it is foundational as an alternative to set theory. It's a math of process and relation. It is capable of complexity and infinite hierarchy.

 

Anyway... I digress. Yeah, the pure mathematicians are essentially artists. They are intuitive and creative.

[Ouroboros]

I've forgotten more calculus than I ever care to relearn. But yeah, most systems of differential equations can't be solved.

Just talked to my son again. He told me that today they learned that to solve problems, they have to basically philosophize over how to do it. There's no given method.

 

My big push these days are categories. Categories are simultaneously foundational and advanced. It was established during 1942-45 via advanced considerations in algebraic topology, but at the same time it is foundational as an alternative to set theory. It's a math of process and relation. It is capable of complexity and infinite hierarchy.

I want to get into it, but just haven't had the time. I saw the notation you used earlier, which is the same that is used when functions are introduced, but that's as far as I know.

 

Anyway... I digress. Yeah, the pure mathematicians are essentially artists. They are intuitive and creative.

Very much so.

 

One of my math teachers were so friggin' brilliant. She solved stuff in her head in fractions of seconds before we even had a chance to copy it down to our notebooks. But she was also socially awkward. She scared me a bit and I dropped that class. She was disappointed since I'm such a brilliant student myself...

[Legion]

She scared me a bit and I dropped that class. She was disappointed since I'm such a brilliant student myself...

Well I tell ya Hans, As much as I appreciate math I think math education needs a major overhaul. I tell you this, I'm going to inspire my nephews to the extent that I am able about mathematical thought. And I likely won't mention numbers even once.

[agnosticator]

I'll state my thoughts to this. Self-aware consciousness arose within the Universe in our species. Consciousness is seen in other species, with or without a brain, I'll add. Consciousness is experience in lower and higher levels of awareness. It is a constant that arises out of the 'fabric' of the Cosmos. It is immaterial in its nature, despite its apparent "fusion" with the material.

 

I get that all life possesses some level of awareness, and what you said up to here is what I think. Yet I have an interest in something about the human mind that has not been discussed much. The conscious mind is a small part of the human mind. I have had many experiences that happen from the "depths" or the "subconscious", for lack of a better label. IOW, this part of my mind has taken over my conscious mind many times, yet only for brief moments. Sure, it constantly regulates bodily functions, but it also pushes my conscious mind aside and into the role of "observer". This intrigues me. Does anyone have recommendations for recent books or articles on the subject?

 

I don't understand how a human being that has such a divided or fractured consciousness could be "whole" without a body. I don't know what the whole mind really consists of in our present "aliveness" either. To me, the mind is as mysterious as the Universe.

[Yrth]

@Pockets: gotcha, fair enough re: "her mind is her brain". I wasn't aware of that reference.

 

Fair enough re: why you feel as you do about things.

 

But we are all the arbiter of our own reality. We all make an assumption, we all take some kind of authority... be it the bible, science, or our own experience. There is no escaping living in a world of our own perception and not being able to be an objective witness to anything. It's not part of the nature of being human. Knowing that, I'm free to explore my actual views about things and my actual experiences rather than replace one authority outside me with another.

 

There is no authority outside me for my own experience.

What do you think about peer review?

 

One of my recurring dilemmas when deconverting was asking, 'How do trust myself?' Looking at religious experience vs. 'baseline' experience really helped clear that up.

 

re: apologetics... apologetics is defending something, presumably with the purpose of convincing someone else. All I've defended is my right to interpret my own experience rather than have it interpreted for me by someone who "knows better" "for my own good". And while it might not be the intention, very often when dealing with materialistic types, that's how I feel I'm being treated. As if I'm not permitted to interpret my own experiences and define my own worldview without being stereotyped in some way.

There's definitely baggage to navigate.

 

If you're interfacing with "real reality" then what are dolphins interfacing with? They perceive with sonar, and as a result perceive an entirely different world from you and I? Which one of you is "right"?

This reminds me of transhumanism and the idea of the "posthuman," in which technology allows folks to do pretty much anything to themselves, like change their modes of perception, add new senses, and alter their bodies. Gene Wolfe's series The Book of the New Sun gets into similar themes, as it is set *far, far in the future. *And while I'm talking about science fiction, let me just say that I would love to hear yours and Am's reaction to Ian MacDonald's novella The Tear.

 

I've really immersed myself in these kinds of ideas in the past, but they just made me more of a materialist and more interested in what's possible, not less.

 

Even time-traveling post-humans are perceiving the same world, just in a radically different way -- by definition, in ways we currently can't comprehend. Sonar, on the other hand, - we have sonar. I don't know what it would be like to have sonar as sensory input -- probably "loud." But there's no disagreement with the non-sonars about objective reality -- and if there is, it would require some hashing out Kuhn-style. That's so different from saying that everyone's perceptions are real -- real to them, maybe, but possibly false. It's a mad world, and you need the other inmates in the asylum to reassure you that, as best you can tell, you're not crazy.

 

I understand the difference between subjective and objective. : / When the dolphins compare notes and explain why I should think differently about objective reality, hopefully I'll be able to hear them.

[Legion]

Two apples, two pieces of sand, Pi, all exist whether the dolphin recognizes them or not.

Number is an abstract concept when looked at from certain perspectives. And Pi is a weird number. It has never been completely written and cannot be.

 

As I pointed out above, an engineer who makes up his own mathmatical reality will build bridges and buildings that colapse. I absolutely cannot see how it can be argued this is not representative of objective reality. (I'll be traveling, so won't be around to discuss this for a few days)

I quite agree. You said it well. It's a representation. Theories of gravity and mechanics are like applied math. The math is utilized because it has implications which can be used to "mirror" or parallel the entailments associated with standing (and failing) bridges. The essence of theory is model, a mathematical representation of nature and causality.

[Legion]

Which brings me back to topic come to think of it....

 

Reductionism is characterized by the implications associated with the formal systems (math) it uses to model nature.

[VacuumFlux]

Even time-traveling post-humans are perceiving the same world, just in a radically different way -- by definition, in ways we currently can't comprehend. Sonar, on the other hand, - we have sonar. I don't know what it would be like to have sonar as sensory input -- probably "loud."

 

Humans can learn to echolocate. I'd image it would be a process of co-opting the visual cortex, since that's one of the most developed parts of our brain and incredibly flexible. So I'd expect it to feel more like sight than sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation

 

Well I tell ya Hans, As much as I appreciate math I think math education needs a major overhaul. I tell you this, I'm going to inspire my nephews to the extent that I am able about mathematical thought. And I likely won't mention numbers even once.

 

Math has numbers?!

 

I had one math-math class (way more theoretical than practical things like calculus) and was surprised to have to add two single digit integers for one of the questions on the final. But I was in higher math mode and had to count slowly on my fingers, because I couldn't change my mental state fast enough remember how arithmetic works.

[NotBlinded]

The only other explanation I could see, and to incorporate a "spirit" or "soul" mind outside the body, would be if the brain is merely a radio for the "mind" that exists somewhere else. Let's say our "mind" is part of the akashic record. And our physical brain is only a receiver/transmitter between that "mind" and this physical world. This still means that we should be able to reproduce a brain, just another mind-radio, of any kind of matter or composition (tube radios and silicon based radios both work for the same purpose), and restore a person's mind/memory/experience/personality. One way of proving this hypothesis would be to create a virtual brain. And if this was true, then "ghosts" would be just mind-radio-signals that are lost in the "ether." One problem though, how does a "mind" collect itself into just one mind, why not an infinite multitude of minds all fighting for the same brain? Are each brain "tuned" to our own private and personal frequency?

I think it's not so much an either or, but a both. If consciousness exists outside of brain, it's probably in the form of probablities, whereas the brain receives these probabilities and the mind makes sense of them. If the brain is damaged in some way, mind can't work to makes sense out of the signals because the brain is not getting them right. I don't think Mind is willed in anyway other than just being out there ,aybe in the "ether". I don't think personality exists outside the brain. I think that is a function of the brain. If reincarnation, or incarnation over and over again, is true, that would mean, to me, that this Mind of probabilites would experience life in with a new personality.

 

Just putting some thoughts out there.

[NotBlinded]

I see life like this too. We can view the world in many different ways from many different perspectives, but none of those change what is already set in motion and what is already objectively true whether it can be properly understood or not.

 

For instance, the world rotates one time per day regardless of whether it is measured by commonly accepted measurement standards. The sun is still going to be at relatively the same position every day at a specific point in time even if that point in time is inconceivable by dolphins, even if our concept of time is just our concept or even if it is measured differently by aliens.

 

"Now classification is precisely maya. The word is derived from the Sanskrit root matr – ‘to measure, form, build, or lay out a plan,’ the root from which we obtain such Greco-Latin words as meter, matrix, material, and matter. The fundamental process of measurement is division, whether by drawing a line with the finger, or marking off or by enclosing circles with the span of the hand or dividers, or by sorting grain or liquids in measures (cups). Thus the Sanskrit root dva – from which we get the word ‘divide’ is also the root of the Latin duo (two) and the English ‘dual.’

 

To say, then, that the world of facts and events is maya is to say that facts and events are terms of measurement rather than realities of nature. We must, however, expand the concept of measurement to include setting bounds of all kinds, whether by descriptive classification or selective screening. It will thus be easy to see that facts and events are as abstract as lines of latitude or as feet and inches. " Alan Watts

 

I just find it amazing that the word maya, the word for illusion, comes from words that deal with measuring reality.

[Open_Minded]

Hello Folks

 

It's been awhile since I've visited here at ex-c. Hope you are all doing well.

 

Today I came across an interview on Skeptiko. For those of you who don't know, Skeptiko bills itself as ....

a leading source for intelligent, hard-nosed skeptic vs. believer debate on science and spirituality. Each episode features lively discussion with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics.

 

In reading through this interview, I was reminded that 3 years after starting this topic that reductionism and materialisim are STILL NOT scientifc givens. So... I am posting the link and some excerpts here ... just as a way of continuing a discussion with some great people.

 

Dr. Melvin Morse On Why Doctors Don’t Listen to Near-Death Experience Accounts

 

Interview with pediatrician and near-death experience researcher discusses why it has taken the scientific and medical establishment so long to accept near-death experience accounts. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with near-death experience research and author of, Closer to the Light, Dr. Melvin Morse. During the interview Morse discusses why science has not fully accepted the near-death experience:

 

I personally like the way the interview begins:

 

Alex Tsakiris: Today we’re joined by a pediatrician, Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Washington, and a near-death experience researcher, whose work has literally touched the lives of millions of people. Dr. Melvin Morse is best known for his groundbreaking book, Touched by the Light, describing the near-death experiences of children. Dr. Morse, welcome and thanks so much for joining me today on Skeptiko.

Dr. Melvin Morse: Well, it’s a pleasure to be here. I’m honored to be on your show. I think that your show is one of the most provocative and interesting shows. I love the whole concept of Skeptiko. You’re a true skeptic.

 

Alex Tsakiris: Well, let’s see. We’re going to have to grill you, now. I was really going to take off the gloves but now you’ve kind of riled me up here.

Dr. Melvin Morse: [Laughs] Remember, a skeptic is a true inquirer and I consider myself to be a skeptic. I’m tired of this half-kneed, caustic skeptic versus believer debate which is really just a rehashed science of the 19^th century arguing against failed philosophies of the 17^th century.

Alex Tsakiris: Right, and it’s as we’ve explored, after a while when you dig through it, it looks like a lot of theatre and then you have to wonder what is really behind the theatre. What is going on that folks are trying to distract us from?

 

I like the way this begins - because right away I know this interview is not going to be just another debate between fundies from both sides of the fence. It tells me that these two people are searching for simple truth, simple reality and that they are both willing to acknowledge the validity of each other's position.

 

 

 

Dr. Melvin Morse: It was a little different when I got back to Seattle Children’s Hospital. I mean, everybody was just openly skeptical. The psychiatrist at Seattle Children’s Hospital told me, “Well, this is some sort of weird fascinoma. It must be because she was Mormon or something. I’m a psychiatrist. I work for the patients in the Enhanced Care unit. If people are really having experiences when they die, I would be the one that would know about it. People would tell me.”

And we actually designed our study to show that these experiences were not real. We specifically designed it to look at issues like: Are these experiences caused by lack of oxygen to the brain? Are these experiences the result of an anesthetic agent called hyalophane that we often use in resuscitation, which is known to have a dissociative effect? Some side effect of the morphine and various drugs that we give patients? We really were looking more at that aspect of it.

When I did the research I was primarily interested in that she could remember anything about her resuscitation. The spiritual aspects of it really did not interest me or the research team. We were mostly thinking that maybe this could give us some clue as to what is memory. Where is memory localized in the brain, etc.? We had a very rigorous study designed, as you would expect coming out of the University of Washington. And to get something like this, the human subjects for our research, the review board was difficult.

 

I’ll add that we very carefully matched all of our study patients, who were primarily survivors of cardiac arrest, we carefully matched them with patients who were the same age and the same social circumstances who also had a lack of oxygen to the brain, who also were treated with the same medications. But—the important but being—as we as physicians knew, these patients were not near death.

So by comparing these two groups, we found to our total surprise that patients who came to the point of death, clinical death through cardiac arrest or what-have-you, by and large remembered their experiences and described some aspects of what we call near-death experiences.

 

Whereas the other children who also had a lack of oxygen to the brain, who were also hospitalized in the intensive care unit—let’s face it. You take your average four-year-old child and you intubate them, mechanically ventilate them, then put them through the rigors of an intensive care environment, they think that they’re going to die. And their parents think they’re going to die.

And yet we knew they would not die, given today’s medical care. Those patients did not report this type of experience. Our control patients were the ones that followed what I’d been trained in neuroscience. They typically didn’t remember anything about being in the hospital. Their short- and long-term memory was pretty much wiped out because of the comas.

 

Alex Tsakiris: You know, this thing about memory is really fascinating and it brings up a detail of the near-death experience science that I want to pull on a little bit. That’s that your study found very, very high incidents of reports of near-death experiences among your group, as you just alluded to. Of course, this goes against a lot of the research that’s been done with adult near-death experience survivors.

There are a lot of folks who are on the skeptical side. I recently interviewed NDE skeptic Dr. Caroline Watt from University of Edinburgh and she and her colleagues have tried to make a lot of hay of the low incidents of near-death experience reports in, for example, Dr. Pim Van Lommel’s study.

 

Let me toss one other thing in there because I think your study points to this issue of memory. I don’t hear that enough from near-death experience researchers that they teased out—hey, we talk about this experience and we never really talk about how it’s a remembered experience and maybe you’ve discovered one of the keys as to why children remember it more.

 

Dr. Melvin Morse: Well, before I get into that, though, there is so much misinformation that is going on. There is an enormous amount of misinformation. Pim Van Lommel and I met in the early 1990s and we really designed our studies to be complementary and very, very similar in nature.

 

But the difference is that I was a critical care physician and primarily working in the intensive care unit and I was working with the head of the intensive care unit, the head of child neurology. So we were able to monitor these patients as to their clinical status.

 

Pim Van Lommel worked with eight different centers which is great because he was able to have greater numbers than our research but I went over his cases with him. It’s clear that many of his patients would have been control patients in our group. In other words, we studied just the sickest of the sick. We studied patients that would not be expected to live—that had a one in four hundred chance of making a full recovery. Pim Van Lommel’s study, his patients, he just looked at cardiac arrest and those who survived cardiac arrest, amazingly enough whereas children by and large don’t.

 

The fact that he had much lower numbers is really just an artifact of the study group that he looked at. If he had only studied the profound cardiac arrests, patients who were not expected to live at all, he would have had the same higher results. The implications of this research are that we are unconscious. We’re unconscious a day before we die. We’re unconscious a half-a-day before we die. We’re unconscious ten minutes before we die. Then right at the moment of death, we regain consciousness.

 

That’s been shown in Jim Whinnery’s research, who took fighter pilots at the point of death. There’s no getting around it. I think that people are nitpicking and they’re just scraping around the edges of the thing and they’re ignoring the reality which is that we regain consciousness and see other spiritual awarenesses when we die. That’s a scientific statement as far as I’m concerned in the year of 2012.

 

 

Dr. Melvin Morse: See, we’re trained as physicians to not permit any of that into science. I’ve been giving lectures on this information for really a narrow point of view. Not talking about spiritual aspects of it, just vaguely alluding to that the near-death experience involves a spiritual event. People have come up to me after those lectures at various children’s hospitals and medical settings and they’ve said it’s really unprofessional to discuss spiritual matters in science. I think there is this sort of idea that science cannot tackle spiritual issues.

 

 

I want to just emphasize one thing we said but quickly skipped over. Your point is so powerful. You’ve really gone to the heart of the issue. I want people to understand or to consider when we’re talking about neuroscientists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, medical scientists in general, and they say with a straight face that these experiences could simply be the unraveling of the brain at the point of death, that it could simply be the various biochemical and the disintegration of the brain at the point of death, they know full well that that’s impossible.

 

That’s more impossible than the near-death experience because these experiences, regardless of their content, are extremely complex. If they were just brain-based, they involve your entire cerebral cortex and a functioning emotional center to your brain, and the functional memory aspect to your brain, all working together in coordination to create the experience. That is not something that can happen in a diseased, near-death brain.

 

The gods of neurology that I worship say that coma wipes clean the slate of consciousness. Well, that clearly is not true and they know it’s not true. So I agree with you. I think that it’s the spiritual content itself is what’s causing this cognitive dissidence. And certainly I have it. I was always afraid that if I ever talked about the spiritual aspects of it that I would never be in a published paper in the medical literature.

 

.....

 

 

Dr. Melvin Morse: Oh boy, so many thoughts on what you’re saying. One is that I think it required patience. I think that these stories are so dramatic and they’re so profound that there is a part of me that just wants to go out and say to everybody, “All right, so I wrote four books. All four of them were international bestsellers. And yet it didn’t change things at all.”

 

I know Raymond Moody; I’ve known Raymond for years. So stories aren’t enough and I don’t think that the research is enough. But I do think it takes patience because there is a lot of now supporting evidence that I think has already made a difference in understanding spirituality.

 

For example, the same area of the brain that we’re talking about, the area of the brain which communicates with the divine, with the spiritual realities, the same area of the brain that Kevin Nelson acknowledges, that lets a lot of us communicate with spiritual realities. Except he takes the same journey as me. He goes right to the edge of the cliff but then he walks backwards.

Anyway, that same area of the brain has now been shown to be responsible for something called “functional neurogenesis.” So what is functional neurogenesis? Functional alludes that our thoughts and how we live our lives creates new brain cells. Neurogenesis is the making of new brain cells. And those new brain cells are formed in that very area of the brain. Then they migrate throughout the brain to change it. This has now been shown in real time, interestingly enough, with sophisticated studies, etc.

 

But this explains why we have a—I have a foundation at the Institute for the Scientific Study of Consciousness. One of our board members lost 80% of her brain after a stroke and yet she made a full recovery. Well, okay, so now we’re learning that our thoughts change our brains. That was neuroscientific heresy 20 years ago. That was neuroscientific heresy 10 years ago.

 

It’s the same area of the brain that connects us with God—for lack of a better word. But this information is not well known yet and this information is not integrated into our greater scientific understanding of how the brain works. I’ll give you another one. Here’s something that everybody can relate to.

 

I know people are not familiar with remote viewing, the idea of seeing something at a distance but the idea that we have a non-local aspect to our consciousness. In other words, that we connect. When I say we connect to this God or this divine, well, that’s the all-knowledge. That’s the timeless, spaceless, all-knowledge universe. So that’s the reality that the physicists believe in. That’s the reality that most medical scientists actually believe in.

Robert Lanza, the cloning guy. He writes about how the brain uses time and space as tools but they are not inherent parts of reality. Anybody who’s watched the major league baseball game is already aware of this because a pitcher throwing a ball at 100 miles an hour, the only way that a batter can actually hit that ball is because our brains are non-local in nature. In other words, the impulses of seeing the ball, those impulses going to the back of the brain creating the vision of the ball and then telling the muscles to react, there’s not enough time.

 

It’s been well-shown now that you have to be able to—in plain talk you have to be able to psychically sense where that ball is going to be. So this is happening all the time but these little pieces of information are not yet blended.

I do think that there’s a sense that we have to be patient but then I also think this whole skeptic versus believer debate that we talked about at the onset of this interview and you alluded to what are their motives? Well, I think their motives are clear. They’re making money off of it. I think it’s become an industry in itself to have the debate over and over again.

 

"I think it's become an industry in itself to have the debate over and over again".... what a provocative thought.....

 

I look forward to the thoughts of all those here at ex-c.

 

In Peace - OM