A full 1h30m documentary in the Scole experiment is available on YouTube at the moment (I have no idea whether it will remain available).

The film is narrated by a well known (at least in the UK) investigative journalist called Donal MacIntyre and contains actual footage plus interviews with participants and investigators. The sceptics are represented (briefly, it has to be said) by Chris French: the British media's go-to guy for scepticism. He doesn't actually address any of the (alleged) paranormal events depicted in the film but he does reassure those who might be tempted to believe that, according to science, none of it is possible (of course).

Sometimes we (at least I do) get so involved in looking for confirmation from evidence that will withstand scientific scrutiny that we forget to just listen to the people who actually experience the things we want to believe in. Recently I have been pondering about the Out of Body experience - whether during an NDE or self-induced through meditation or lucid dreaming. I have not been able to do this myself but I came across this video by one Jurgen Ziewe. He has some interesting things to say about what he has learned from his experience - things that make a lot of sense to me.

By the way, for anyone breathlessly awaiting conclusions from the AWARE study, I urge you to take note of his account of an out of body visit to his brother's home. That comes towards the end of part one.

http://www.multidimensionalman.com/Multi...

Dave.

[Reproduced from my website because I don't have a comments section nor the readership of The Daily Grail and I would like to see the opinions of others on this subject.]

The title of this article is very ambitious and I am hardly likely to come up with a concise explanation of a subject that has vexed most of the great minds that have been challenged by it. Indeed, as I start to write this, I am already questioning whether I am ready to say anything of value. But I would like to air my thoughts and ask some questions – if only to endow those thoughts with some substance, as it were: to “get them out there”.

Firstly, I am not coming into this without a modicum of preparation and I am, therefore, aware that similar discussions are happening all the time. The ever-interesting Michael Prescott, for example, might have been channeling my own thoughts in his recent blog: “The over/under of the soul“. Indeed, I would urge you to read that article before this one because it is very relevant to what I will have to say here. Another worthwhile blog article is to be found at White Crow Books by Michael Tymn: “The Enigma of Reincarnation“.

Another source of information may be controversial but I have found it to make more sense to me than many of the current philosophers, religious teachers and guru’s. That source is channeled material from the likes of Jane Roberts (Seth) and Mary Ennis (Elias):

So, where does all that leave us? Well, the way I am coming to view it is that we have two kinds of understanding of the nature of reincarnation:

1. The simplistic view that we are born, live a life on earth and then die which takes us back to the between-life domain. There we decide upon and prepare for another life in which we will, perhaps, address some of the karmic issues that remain from the life just lived. This cycle of birth/death/rebirth continues until we have progressed to a state of spiritual enlightenment which removes the necessity for further incarnations.

2. The “Big Picture” view that acknowledges the fact that time is not linear but merely an illusion, only necessary during our sojourn in this physical environment. Therefore, what we think of as a linear progression of lives is, in fact, a simultaneous composite of lifetimes which together create a gestalt entity such as the “oversoul” spoken of by Michael Prescott in his blog article.

For many years I have paid lip-service to the second concept but have always thought of it as somehow abstract: something that works that way but isn’t really experienced that way. I think I always believed that we actually experienced the linear progression; that time as we know it here on earth would still appear to function that way between lives. Perhaps until the reincarnational cycle finally comes to an end.

These days, however, I think I have changed my mind on that aspect. I think that the #2 explanation is probably what we actually experience. That the identity we have for the lifetime on earth (the focus, as Elias puts it) is a new fragment of the gestalt (the soul entity) which remains intact as a personality within the gestalt. In plain terms, therefore, the you that you identify as yourself will continue after death and will not be abandoned in order to return to earth as another personality. That “new” personality will be a born of the oversoul which, in turn, will remain intact.

It is clearly very difficult for us, in this physical life, to imagine existing outside of time. We are told – even by physicists – that time is an illusion. But our very vocabulary is built upon the foundation of time itself. We have past, present and future tenses. Words like “did”, “am” and “shall” all locate the narrative in time. Science (the scientific method) itself would not be possible without cause and effect. A cause following an effect is seen as a nonsense. So how can we make objective sense of this idea that souls existing beyond the physical world do so without the constraints of time?

I suspect that the answer to that might be contained in the question; or more particularly in the word “objective”. I believe that the nature of reality is fundamentally subjective. We create stories. Dramas which are then played out upon the stages which we have also created. Our reality is no more solid or “real” than Tolkien’s Middle Earth. Our dreams may be the vital clue to what reality is really like. A novel or a movie can skip forwards or backwards in time or jump half a world away in an instant. We can experience much the same in our dreams. I think that we – collectively – have created a reality so stable and “solid” that we cannot entertain the thought that it might not be so. Yet this is not a revolutionary idea. Go back through Hindu or Buddhist texts or read Plato and you will find similar concepts.

So when were are told that the life we experienced as a medieval miller is happening alongside this life we think of as here-and-now … and also alongside another life in the year 2240, in what used to be France … we can’t really grasp it because we are steeped in a lifetime of temporal conditioning. I mean: how come some people can “remember” previous lives if they are happening now? Well, perhaps it really is just a matter of focus. If each of our reincarnational lives are happening now, perhaps we can tune into one or another of them if we know how (or if we are not yet conditioned – as in when we are very young). Perhaps some are closer than others – subjectively speaking. The lives may be related by this artificial earthly timeline and those closest on the timeline may well be the lives we have the most affinity with (and therefore the easiest to tune into).

Dave.

At school, science was one of my favorite subjects. Our modest little Secondary Modern (Olde-English for High School) didn't even have physics on the curriculum (only a watered-down "General Science") so I elected to do extra night classes to get my physics O-Level. Later, I read lots of popular science books about relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmology. I loved the speculation of the theories at the edge.

I was also hugely interested in the paranormal and in spiritual matters. I saw no conflict here. Only much later did I come to realise that there were people who insisted that an interest in one disqualified one from being taken seriously when talking about the other. I found a similar attitude to that which saw Greg accused of being the "Anti-Science Guy".

I guess it is human nature to react badly towards those who unfairly judge us and I have to say that I became - if not anti-science - then definitely anti-sceptic, anti-materialist, anti-Dawkins, anti-Randi, etc., etc. I have to admire Greg for his willingness to read a book by that outrageous publicity-seeker, Wiseman.

Anyhow, the other evening I sat down to watch the movie "Kinsey", starring Liam Neeson. I found myself identifying with Kinsey in many ways: from his rejection of his father's religious tyranny to his fearless battle against moral hypocrisy and ignorance. His weapon was science and evidence and he followed the evidence wherever it might take him, even if he didn't much like the direction he found himself travelling. So I'm not so anti-science after all, I thought.

Now clearly there are people who charge us with being ant-science but who have not followed the evidence. They have rejected the evidence before they have bothered to look at it. They have decided that something can't be so because they don't like where it might take them. So who then is anti-science?

But the most telling part of the film, for me, was when Kinsey was confronted about the meaning of love. He said (to paraphrase) that science could not answer his questions about love because science is about measurement and love can't be measured. Kinsey was admitting - and it was clearly difficult for him to do so - that science can't answer everything.

Oh, how I wish I could hear such honesty from Dawkins and his like. Perhaps the real-life Kinsey didn't really say that - who knows? But Neeson's Kinsey would have been a scientist I could admire and respect and one who would renew my youthful enthusiasm for the subject.

Dave.

Some things disturb my philosophical equilibrium and I struggle to understand why they, rather than others, do so. One such was a BBC radio interview recently with a certain Matthew Syed, a sports journalist and would-be philosopher (and former table tennis champion).

Mr. Syed has written a book entitled "Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice". The title says it all really. I have not read the book but I am commenting here on the radio interview and also this piece in the Independent newspaper and I am guessing that the book will come to the same conclusion: namely that there is no such thing as talent: it is all the result of practice.

Now, I am not one to deny that mind, motivation and determination are powerful factors in the creation of success. Indeed, I would say that the mind can create just about anything, given the will to do so. But to deny that innate talent exists is an unnecessary argument unless, as I suspect is going on here, the object is to support a reductionist view of human achievement.

I surmise that the argument would go something like this: the mind creates the will to achieve; when we say "mind" we really mean the physical brain; the desire is directed into repetitive physical actions which result in skill.

My response would be to say that there is room at the top for both. You can see it in any field of endeavour but none more so than in sport. You get the flair players and you get the method players. Both will practice, both will achieve but you watch them and you recognise that the flair player will often do something completely inspired and outside the training routine. A moment of creative genius that can't be taught because it has never been seen before.

Is there anyone reading this who can't think of examples?

I happened across this YouTube clip of an interview with author, Richard Matheson. He is a prolific writer and, even though his name might not ring any bells, his titles surely will: "I Am Legend", "What Dreams May Come", "Somewhere in Time" not to mention many TV scripts for the Twilight Zone and the original series of Star Trek. Ann Rice and Stephen King have named Matheson as an influence and the latter has dedicated a novel to him.

I watched the clip and found myself smiling and nodding at just about everything he says. I think others here at TDG might have a similar reaction.

Any list-makers out there? You know, the kind described in the movie Hi Fidelity? "My top 5 ... of all time". That kind of list.

Ok - well, I have a movie rental deal and I need to choose two a month. I love movies with a bit of philosophical depth but I'm running low on titles. I'd also be interested in your favourites, even if they are on my (or anyone's) list. So I'll start the ball rolling with 10 of my best (in no particular order):

Matrix Trilogy
Blade Runner
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
The Thirteenth Floor
The Truman Show
2001
The Sixth Sense
Dark City
Jacob's Ladder
Twin Peaks (Fire Walk With Me)

I'll probably kick myself for leaving out some absolute classics but that's why I'm throwing this open for comment. I enjoy foreign language (subtitled) films too so don't hold back :)

Enjoy.

Davd.

One day a few spring-times ago I was driving my family down a dirt road to a picnic site near the river Thames. On the way we passed a field of sheep and happened to notice that one was giving birth. I stopped and we all got out to witness this miracle of nature. It shows what a city boy I've always been because I had never seen this in real life before (I'd seen it on TV, etc.) so the event has remained vivid in my memory.

What has also remained from that experience is a question that presented itself so forcefully at the time. The lamb, being minutes old, raised itself on to its four legs and walked - somewhat unsteadily - around its mother and found a teat. The mother stood still throughout - no attempt was made to guide the lamb to the right spot. The lamb knew where to look.

So the question is: how did the lamb know where to look? Indeed, how did it know how to get to its feet and walk? Any computer programmer would tell you that what happened in those few moments would represent a mammoth feat of software engineering.

So, during the past few days I've been searching via Google for answers on how instinct might be explained. I've found that I am not the only one asking the question. Mostly the answer comes back as: "it is hard-wired", or "it is programmed into the DNA". OK, I think, go on: how? And there I hit a wall. For anyone interested, here are a few hits:

http://home.provide.net/~dougklim/Memedn...

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/47...

https://richarddawkins.net/discussions/4...

I have to say that I find one comment in the Dawkins DNA computer code discussion highly enlightening with regard to the unwritten rules for those who post there:

Note that Venton felt the need to establish his atheist credentials so that he might be taken seriously.

Here is another interesting link to some studies done by a Doctor working with Autistic Savants. The connection with instinct will become clear upon reading:

http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/s...

I'd like to quote a chunk of that paper here because, to me, it makes fascinating reading:

You see, the man has spent his life as a medical doctor. He refers to the Jung term "Collective Unconscious" but isn't comfortable with it. He prefers "Genetic Memory". But where is this memory stored? What is the code?

Have fun.

Dave.

Like Greg, I am quite a fan of the web site "Closer to Truth". I have browsed and watched many of the video's available there and like the way they are categorised for our convenience. Today, I took a look at one of those topics, namely, "Is There Life After Death?":

http://www.closertotruth.com/topic/Is-Th...

What I'd like to comment on here is the difference in the responses between the sceptics and those who give at least some credence to the idea. Compare, for example, the interviews with Michael Shermer and Michael Tooley with those of Stephen Braude and Roger Walsh. Shermer was picked up, more than once, for his apparently patronising attitude and most of the interview concentrated upon his own issues with religious beliefs. Like Shermer, Tooley speaks in a controlled and outwardly relaxed manner but seems to project nothing but disdain for the subject under discussion. He dismisses all mediums as fakes and invokes Harry Houdini and James Randi as champions of rationality. They both make statements as though they were speaking incontrovertible truths. For example, Tooley says that the so-called argument from evil has effectively closed the case on the existence of God (although not in those exact words). Another video on the same web site states why the argument from evil does no such thing:

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profi...

Sometimes it is difficult to know where science ends and dogma begins and I must say that some of the spokespeople for science don't help its cause very much.

Dave.

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/micha...

Michael Prescott rarely fails to have something interesting for his readers. His review of "The Goblin Universe" by Ted Holiday in particular chimes nicely with many of my own dearly held but essentially amateur hypotheses. Such as:

and...

and this ...

Great food for thought even if it is pure speculation.

Enjoy.