I haven't been posting much lately, in part because I had computer problems that finally obliged me to get a new MacBook. But the other reason is that I find myself increasingly less interested in the endless back-and-forth of the survival debate. It seems that the same arguments are endlessly rehearsed, with Skeptics propounding some non-paranormal explanation for every NDE, OBE, apparition, past-life memory, and after-death communication ever reported, and treating each as if it were an isolated and rare event, while the pro-survival side comes up with more and more cases, only to be told that it's not enough (and even, according to some Skeptics, that none of it qualifies as evidence at all). Barring some breakthrough that will settle the matter once and for all, the debate, such as it is, appears likely to continue forever. 

What does interest me these days is going beyond the empirical evidence, which has been aired pretty thoroughly on this blog and in countless books and on many other websites, and trying to formulate some kind of model that will make sense of things. Now, the first point to make about this is that it's an enterprise that cannot really succeed. What I mean is, no model is ever going to capture the full reality of what's going on. Any theoretical construct (much less a mere analogy or metaphor) will fail to encompass the complete range of the phenomena it's trying to cover. The menu is not the meal, the map is not the territory, etc. The value of a model is not that it is a complete or even an accurate representation, but that it can be useful. It is a way of organizing disparate observations into a more coherent whole. Its value is epistemological, not ontological; it can be an aid to thinking, even though it is by no means a perfect reflection of reality. 

With that in mind, I'd say that the model that currently appeals most to me is the virtual reality model. I realize that this approach is open to the standard objection that we're just using the latest and most fashionable technology to conceptualize our world. As Newton's clockwork universe reflected the intricate clockwork mechanisms of his day, so we now turn to VR, the newest and coolest tech, to explain things in our time. This is true, but again, the goal is not to capture what is really going on, but to find a useful way of visualizing it. That being the case, it's not surprising that each new iteration of technology should provide us with new opportunities for metaphors and analogies. As long as we don't mistake the menu for the meal, we should be okay.

The virtual reality model is perhaps best summarized by words attributed to Roger Ebert shortly before his death: "It's all an elaborate hoax." Or perhaps by a well-known campfire song, which is more philosophically acute than most campers realize: 

Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, 
Life is but a dream 

Or by Prospero's soliloquy in The Tempest:

You do look, my son, in a moved sort,
As if you were dismay'd: be cheerful, sir.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and 
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve 
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.

It has much in common with Plato's theory of Forms or Ideas and with his allegory of the cave. It also has points in common with the broodings of mystics throughout the centuries, and with the insights of all those who are said to have experienced Cosmic Consciousness. 

For me personally, it seems the richest and most satisfying model — though again, only a model, and not even a fully developed one, as yet — of reality. So what exactly is the virtual reality model? 

Basically, it's the view that earthly life is a fully immersive role-playing game. This game is designed by our higher self, with which we are in only tenuous contact while embodied. The game is meant to be challenging and instructive. The stakes are, in one sense, real — we gain real wisdom and personal growth. In another sense, the stakes are illusory —Ebert's "elaborate hoax." Our physical gains and losses are of no real consequence, and even our joy and suffering are transient and ultimately trivial, no matter how powerfully they may affect us here and now. What matters is what we take away from our travails. As Kipling wrote in his most famous poem, If

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

The game is about winning and losing, but the real victories are those of the mind and spirit. Being embodied, we tend to forget this. And as might be expected, our immersion in the fully convincing virtual environment tends to become more complete over time, as we gradually forget whatever we knew of our origins. Children are known for not treating reality as fully real, blurring imagination and facts, and engaging in endless play. Adults usually grow out of all that. We settle in to our circumstances and become more firmly nested in the familiar "real world." Or as Wordsworth wrote in Intimations of Immortality

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star, 
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come 
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
But he beholds the light, and whence it flows, 
He sees it in his joy;
The Youth, who daily farther from the east
Must travel, still is Nature's priest,
And by the vision splendid
Is on his way attended; 
At length the Man perceives it die away,
And fade into the light of common day.

Those who don't quite grow up, the mystics and dreamers, are derided by those practical types who, having more efficacy in the workaday world, tend to dominate the action here. But while these hardheaded realists are on top now, they often prove least insightful and least spiritually mature, and they are not learning the lessons that matter most. Ultimately, the last shall be first and the first shall be last; unless you become like  a small child, you will not enter heaven's kingdom; the only treasure worth having is spiritual mastery, which is the pearl of great price.

Life on earth is hard and painful. There is no getting around this fact. Dr. Pangloss's encomia to "this best of all possible worlds" simply do not ring true for most of us. The "problem of pain" has vexed spiritual seekers of all descriptions. Why would a loving God or a beneficent universe allow so much pointless suffering? The usual explanation, that original sin and plain old human cussedness are responsible, doesn't account for such purely natural calamities as earthquakes, tidal waves, and malarial mosquitoes. And even human-caused catastrophes like war and tyranny plague those who are innocent of any wrongdoing. So what's it all about?

Well, just how interesting or instructive would any role-playing game be if there were no obstacles, hazards, and challenges? We seek conflict and drama in movies and novels — why not in the ultimate fictional story we've devised, the story of our own lives? An author does not shrink from making things difficult for his characters; he knows that the more they struggle, the better the narrative. Our higher self, with a kind of pitiless creativity, lays traps and snares for us as we navigate the virtual environment of our personal drama. To us, it may seem like sadism, just as an animal may perceive nothing but hostile intent in the jab of the veterinarian's needle. It takes a higher intelligence to know that the pain of the injection is the necessary price of avoiding rabies. 

Moreover, while the game is planned in some respects, it is not planned out in detail. The players themselves can and will make pivotal decisions, writing their own script, which may deviate significantly from what the planners had in mind. Sometimes our higher self will nudge us back on track when we threaten to go too badly off course; others times, we are on our own. Like children learning to walk, we have to be allowed to fall. 

But the real answer to the problem of pain is that the game, however real it seems to us while we are immersed in it, is only a game, and a brief one at that. It's a cliche that as people age, they look back on their lives and wonder where the time went. All those years look like only a moment — a lifetime seems like little more than a waking dream. I think this perception is correct. It is only a moment, only a dream. When viewed from the perspective of the higher self (a perspective as alien to us as the perspective of Spaceland is to a Flatlander), all this Sturm und Drang is only the passing agitation of troubled sleep. 

Better be with the dead … 
Than on the torture of the mind to lie
In restless ecstasy. Duncan is in his grave;
After life’s fitful fever he sleeps well;
Treason has done his worst: nor steel, nor poison,
Malice domestic, foreign levy, nothing 
Can touch him further.

(Macbeth, Act III, Sc. 2

Life's fitful fever is the restless excitement of the chase, the urgent pursuit of elusive goals, the playing of the game. Our seemingly real world — our virtual reality — affords us endless opportunities to strive and suffer. By playing the game, we learn and grow, or we fail to learn and repeat the same self-defeating mistakes.  Either way, "it's all an elaborate hoax," and to the extent that we see through it, we become better players — more focused, more aware, less fearful.

And when we lose the need to win … we've won. 

Posted in
  1. Art Avatar
    Art

    \\”Many of us seem to end up in fairly dismal realms–some even quite reminiscent of earth’s less hospitable places.” Cyrus//
    —————
    Every negative NDE I’ve ever read eventually turns positive… if they last long enough. Howard Storm’s NDE turned positive when he called out to God.
    I don’t believe in dark realms and hell. I believe everyone is healed when they come in contact with the light. This is the place of suffering and the other side, the place we call heaven, is the place of healing, love, connectedness and oneness.
    The suffering we experience here is to teach us a few simple lessons, duality and separation, time and space, being in a body and controlling that body, and what it was like to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time universe.
    This Earth life is just a school that we come to for a short while to learn a few lessons before leaving our bodies and merging back into that holographic film we call heaven.
    The soul’s lessons are embedded in our everyday lives and it is holistically imprinted with what it needs to learn regardless of who we are, or where we live or what we believe. Everyone experiences duality and separation, time and space, what it’s like to be in a body and control that body, and make memories of what it was like to live in a 3 dimensional + 1 time Universe.

  2. Cyrus Avatar

    Not to be such a contrarian, but I’m not crazy about the Tibetan book; and this particular outlook that I’ve heard so many times (and is repeated by people like William Buhlman who advises people upon crossing over, to avoid all other existences but that of pure formless consciousness).
    The reason is simple: what’s wrong with games? Maybe “Summerland” or all these infinite variety of alleged afterlife realms are indeed sort of VR realms. But, what’s wrong with enjoying them? Being with people you love, exploring places, doing hobbies, having fun, learning about yourself, etc.
    The person who just decides to transcend into pure consciousness is missing out on endless variety. It’s a kind of desire to destroy the “ego” or become “one with everything” which also includes a kind of annihilation process. So, it just doesn’t jive with me. I’m happy to see reality as a simulation, but ENJOY that solution and learn from it, versus just cashing out completely. When this philosophy is further taught as dogma (on a fundamentalist religious level) we have a serious problem.

  3. Cyrus Avatar

    Art wrote, “I don’t believe in dark realms and hell. I believe everyone is healed when they come in contact with the light.”
    I’ll respect your belief. However, it’s just that–a belief. It doesn’t align with what I consider credible information about the conditions of the afterlife. You’ve read particular NDEs where an astral voyager ends up momentarily in a very high realm, and you assume it is the one and only condition of the afterlife.
    Most importantly, this point of view dissolves legitimacy and individuality. To me, it’s the New Age fear of negativity that I see constantly, yet it’s not connected with reality,because we need to go through and work out our darkness sometimes. This belief negates that. It’s the idea that a murderer and horrible person will not be accountable for his actions, but will immediately be absorbed by “the light” and become some merged consciousness after death.
    But we don’t go from A directly to Z. It would beat the whole point. It would also be impossible, because not everyone is at the exact level of development. People greatly vary, and many need an exceptional amount of work to get over their personal issues.
    NDEs are certainly profound, but by all accounts there’s literally millions of different potential realms to end up in after death.

  4. Juan Avatar
    Juan

    You won’t see me waxing poetic about Mediums. I think they get bits and pieces and then add a whole lot of filler. They get a few simple “hits” and then ramble on to try and fill up 45 minutes to an hour when the truth is they get brief glimpses and have to put it all together.
    That does not apply to the strongest cases such as R101 case or Eileen Garrett.
    I have more faith in NDEs and death bed visions because they are congruent with or corroborate the holographic universe theory which I think can’t be a coincidence.
    Not to have faith, but what is most probable. The fact that some NDEs seem consistent with the holographic hypothesis does not prove anything. NDEs point to an afterlife for the ordened experiences and veridical and extrasensory experiences, but they have not come to prove in lab situations. Deathbed visions are interesting but do not usually provide veridical information.

  5. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    I agree with juan on the remark about mediums.
    It’s very simplistic and only relates to mental mediumship of a specific type.

  6. Amos Oliver Doyle Avatar

    I suppose that we all have our favorite resources explaining what the afterlife is like. And of course we all can additionally imagine and propose an afterlife that meets our individual hopes, or fears, for a continued existence. It’s a fun exercise to verbalize these thoughts. But just how significant are any of these suppositions? There is no evidence to validate a virtual reality, a holographic universe, a stage play, a game or any other term one wishes to use to explain the reality we are currently living in or one into which we may be going.
    I experienced my first memory of this reality somewhere around May 10, 1939. My first conscious experience of this reality was one of being before an open screened window, with a slight warm breeze blowing on me. I was engulfed in a very bright light. The window had white lace curtains blowing in the wind. I did not think in words but I just had the experience of this warm, pleasant, safe and quiet experience. I was not conscious of having a body although apparently I had one. (I may not technically have been ‘in’ the body at that time.) I think that I experienced myself as pure consciousness though. I had no sense of having been anybody, that is, I didn’t recall a past life personality. I just was!
    Later on as I grew into my body I suppose my next memory was standing up in a crib, calling for my absent mother and arguing with my father when he tried to speak from another room in a woman’s voice and I said “That’s not mother.” I had a bottle of infant formula in my hand which I threw against the wall opposite my crib. I obviously was aware that I had a body then and I apparently had begun to think in words.
    It could be that if and when I enter any future reality, it may be little different from my experience in this one. Initially it might seem as indistinct as my first experience in this life but later I might solidify so to speak into another kind of body appropriate for those environs. If life after death is only pure consciousness, then I think I can understand why there is a need for a physical life. Pure consciousness without the ability to interact with other people and things seems to me to be just a forerunner for extinction, pleasant perhaps but going nowhere. – AOD

  7. lynn Avatar
    lynn

    I see it your way ‘Cyrus’. In reading a great number of NDE’S they all reiterate that they were ‘themselves’ the whole time. I think its free will all the way, whatever level over there. You don’t stop developing, but carry on. Is just that here, life is felt on a different level.
    I remember reading of one woman who attempted suicide who said she was in an area where people were somewhat depressed, and she could see a normal world out what looked like thick glass, but couldn’t access it. As deep down in her psyche, she felt undeserving.
    I feel you are what you think over there, which is similar to here. The totality of your experiences therefore matters, much as they do here as well. Cheers Lyn .

  8. Art Avatar
    Art

    \\”There is no evidence to validate a virtual reality, a holographic universe, a stage play, a game or any other term one wishes to use to explain the reality we are currently living in or one into which we may be going.” – amos//
    ———-
    It’s called “consilience.” I learned about it by reading Michael’s blog. If you had read enough NDEs and The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot the connections between the two are obvious.
    “In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can “converge” to strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence,” (wikipedia)
    Read “The Universe as a Hologram” and then read Mark Horton’s NDE, which is just one of many that have allusions to the holographic universe. The consilience between them is obvious.
    Universe as a Hologram
    http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html
    Mark Horton’s NDE
    http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

  9. Amos Oliver Doyle Avatar

    Art,
    With all due respect, ‘consilience’ is not evidence for anything. Consilience of ‘non-evidence’ is not evidence! I have previously read the references you cited and many, many more as well as hundreds of reports of NDEs and to tell the truth I am sick of all of these learned opinions, analogies and metaphors which attempt to explain reality. A hologram is a ‘picture’, of sorts, produced by lasers on a film and played back by another laser. In order for an image to be produced there must be something in objective reality, something that already exists for a laser to focus in on. Where is that super laser that is producing this hologram I live in. What objective reality is it focusing on to produce the hologram. It is like a great god in the sky. There is no hard evidence that either exist.
    There is nothing wrong with conjecturing what the universe is really like and nothing wrong with imagining what reality really is. There is nothing wrong with writing about one’s ideas, opinions and beliefs but just because someone, anybody really, gets something published in a book doesn’t mean that it has any validity.

  10. Michael Prescott Avatar

    “A hologram is a ‘picture’, of sorts, produced by lasers on a film and played back by another laser. In order for an image to be produced there must be something in objective reality, something that already exists for a laser to focus in on.”
    Well, not necessarily. It’s possible to create a hologram on a computer, using nothing more than the ones and zeroes of digital information. Which suggests at least the possibility that the physical world is ultimately grounded in information, and that this information is rendered three-dimensional and tangible in some quasi-holographic way. And there are (a few) scientists looking seriously at the holographic universe theory, which offers certain testable predictions.
    I agree, though, that the subject is highly speculative and that no model can completely capture the complexities of reality. By its nature, a model is a simplification (at best), if not an outright distortion or fiction (at worst). But models can be useful, even when flawed. And I think it’s natural to try to put it all together and make a coherent story out of disparate facts.
    The danger is confirmation bias – cherry-picking the facts we like and disregarding the ones we dislike. The other danger is becoming so attached to our model that it becomes our reality – the classic case of mistaking the menu for the meal.

  11. Juan Avatar
    Juan

    There is no evidence to validate a virtual reality, a holographic universe, a stage play, a game or any other term one wishes to use to explain the reality we are currently living in or one into which we may be going.
    It is true. So I prefer to limit myself to the existence of an afterlife, which does have empirical evidence though not hard evidence.
    Moreover, there are two very different holographic conceptions: one, created by David Bohm and Karl Pribram, which is being handled in this blog, and another of this article, which appears to be experimental but not has been verified:
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/12/08/reality-check-the-universe-is-probably-not-a-hologram/#.V5OJhPmLS1s

  12. Alan Avatar
    Alan

    Amos
    “Where is that super laser that is producing this hologram I live in. What objective reality is it focusing on to produce the hologram.”
    There’s a idea that’s widely accepted by physicists who know of it called the “holographic principle” which indicates that information in a volume (like the matter in the universe) is a projection from somewhere else, some surface. This implies, I think, that location is a problem (like where I actually am now).
    Not to do with lasers, of course, nothing to do with any spiritual aspect of Reality either, as it’s hard physics.

  13. Amos Oliver Doyle Avatar

    I have to say that when I cut down a ‘holographic tree’ it is I and the saw that produce the sawdust. The sawdust is not instantaneously generated as a hologram by some laser somewhere nor is it produced by somebody or something putting together a lot of ‘0s’ and ‘1s’ as I make the saw cut. The annual rings of the tree are intrinsic to the wood and were there before I made the cut to see them, so were the beetle grubs hidden underneath the bark.
    I think that as much as some might wish that this reality were not really ‘real’ so that the fear of death might be diminished for them somewhat, in my opinion my 3-dimensional reality is real, tangible, touchable, malleable and subject the whims of outrageous fortune much in the way that any other possible reality might be put together. I don’t think it is a projection or digital computation of anything.
    It’s just my opinion of course which counts for about as much as most opinions of other people. – AOD

  14. Michael Prescott Avatar

    “I have to say that when I cut down a ‘holographic tree’ it is I and the saw that produce the sawdust.” Well, to be strictly accurate about it, the tree, the sawdust, the saw, and your own body are all parts of your experience of cutting down the tree. Nothing that you experience is unfiltered by consciousness. So the question is, what is real? Consciousness is real; that’s self-evident. Everything else is subsumed under consciousness. It may be fully real in its own right (this is technically known as naive realism), or it may be, to some extent, a creation of consciousness.
    The Kantian epistemology is that consciousness renders a world of things existing in space and time out of a timeless and spaceless “noumenal” dimension. This is counter-intuitive, but not necessarily wrong. “Common sense” may not be of much value in dealing with such recondite matters.
    If you think of consciousness as the ground of being, then it could make sense to think of information (whether visualized as binary code or in some other way) as the essential content of that consciousness, in which case the world as we experience it is “rendered” out of that information by some mysterious alchemy of consciousness processing information.
    Or maybe not. No one knows. It’s a mistake, however, to assume that these questions can be resolved by simple appeal to direct experience. It’s like Dr. Johnson claiming to have invalidated ontological idealism by kicking a stone. The stone and the kick were parts of his subjective experience, not proof of an independent objective reality.
    My best guess is that something like Kantian epistemology is broadly true. No, it’s not common-sensical, but neither is the double slit experiment or quantum entanglement (both of which are easier to explain on the basis of an informational substrate to observed reality).

  15. Hanneke Wasserman Avatar
    Hanneke Wasserman

    Michael I read your piece on Sylvia Brown and I always thought she was a fake but that is not why I am posting this. On one of her last appearances on the Montel Williams show when she did her predictions for the next year (I just can not remember the year), she predicted a third term for Clinton. She did not mention a first name. I have been trying to locate the Montel show when she made this prediction but I am totally stuck. Can you help me and find the episode when she predicted this. I would absolutely love to get a copy of this segment. I hope you can help me. Thank you very much.

  16. Michael Prescott Avatar

    Sorry, Hanneke, I have no idea. As you probably know from reading my post, I had a low opinion of Sylvia Browne. I wouldn’t take her predictions seriously. Even if she had specifically predicted Hillary as president, it would mean next to nothing, since Hillary has been seeking the presidency for years.

  17. Anthony McCarthy Avatar
    Anthony McCarthy

    Go work at a soup kitchen or some other place like that and real reality will drive away the illusion. That reality has a way of being non-virtual in just about every way.
    I’d also suggest Walter Brueggemann’s many books and many, many Youtube talks, lectures and sermons.

  18. Michael Prescott Avatar

    Anthony McCarthy, that’s what’s known as an appeal to emotion.
    We engage in serious discussions here. Try to keep up.

  19. Matt Rouge Avatar
    Matt Rouge

    Responding to both AOD and Anthony McCarthy:
    First, basically what Michael said, on a philosophical level.
    But here’s my own input. Calling it “virtual reality” is to engage in a metaphor, and I think the metaphor isn’t working for you guys, and that’s understandable. “VR” is an imperfect metaphor. It invites us to criticize superficial aspects of what is being proposed. I’ve encountered this too when talking about “information”: I get back, “Well, information can’t be alive, so it’s not information.”
    Right. People encountering these new ideas have to *work with* the proposers to a reasonable extent. You kinda have to squint and see it.
    I prefer the term “fiat reality.” No, this is not a reference to the Italian car company (old joke: Fiat stands for “fix it again, Tony.”). It’s simply a recognition that much (but not all) of reality is arbitrary. For example, the gravitational constant is what it is for no discernible reason. Moreover, much of reality is simply not experienced at all and must be expressed in purely mathematical terms. E.g., we can’t see quarks; they are not objects in any sense we normally experience. They are smaller than the smallest wavelength of light, nor could we see them by bouncing electrons off them. They are not just invisible; there is nothing about them or see or sense in any way at all.
    So whether you are sawing a tree or serving in a soup kitchen, *all* of that experience is grounded in things that *cannot be experienced* and which are to a large extent arbitrary in nature (the laws of math and logic ground everything and are *not* arbitrary. I call this “a priori reality.”). I think this is the fundamental message of what Michael and I are talking about, though the details of our perspectives may vary.

  20. Michael Prescott Avatar

    Okay, on reflection, my riposte to Anthony was too acerbic. Let me try again.
    No one denies that life is full of suffering. And yet the idea that physical reality is either an illusion or at least not fully real has been around for millennia. Buddhism teaches that the world is maya, illusion, and that the wheel of rebirth, samsara, consists of a progression of illusory lives, from which one can escape only by achieving enlightenment. Enlightenment consists of seeing through the illusion.
    Buddhism has flourished in India, among other places. It is safe to say that people in India are well acquainted with poverty, hunger, and suffering.
    The fact of suffering is simply irrelevant to the thesis that life as we experience it as a kind of illusion, game, hoax, or simulation.
    An objection like Anthony’s is presumably based on the idea that VR games are fun, while life is often not fun. But the fun aspect of VR is not an aspect relevant to this analogy. Think of it, instead, as a difficult and sometimes painfully unpleasant game that you are forced to play. Or perhaps the objection is based on the fact that a VR game does not inflict physical pain on the player. But in this model, it is assumed that physical sensations of pain, pleasure, touch, smell, and taste are part of the rendered reality processed by consciousness. It’s a *fully immersive* virtual experience.
    Finally, note that people who have had an NDE often report that their experience was “realer than real.” Why would this be the case, unless ordinary physical reality is less real than the reality experienced behind the scenes?

  21. Eric Newhill Avatar
    Eric Newhill

    I think there is a problem using the dichotomy of “real” versus “unreal” or “illusion” versus “real” – or even “more real” versus “less real”. IMO, it’s rather misguided.
    My understanding is that it is all a matter of where one focuses one’s awareness. When the focus is on the physical world, the physical world is real. When the focus is on an astral world, then it is real, etc.
    We are creating all that we experience with the focus of our awareness. No world created in that manner is more or less real than any other world.
    So the VR model kind of speaks to that, but not sufficiently to be useful to me. This is because, as I read it, it is trying to say that what is outside the VR game is more real than what is inside of it. While that is true of an actual VR environment, it is not true of what is happening via the magical properties of our awareness, focus and intent.
    I understand what the Buddhists are saying, but I reject that as well – or at least I reject what is commonly understood to be what Buddhists are saying.
    By way of loose analogy, to say that the leaves of the tree are not real because the root system is what counts is, to my mind, arbitrary. Or that the green glow of the Christmas light is not real because it is created by colored glass and that therefore it is only the white light from the filament that counts also seems arbitrary (as does saying that it’s neither the green glow nor the white light of the filament because the source is electricity).
    Remember, to the true Buddhist, the only thing that is real is a utterly and absolutely mind blown state in which all that exists is the eternal “OM”…no beings of light, no angels, no deceased spirits of friends or family.

  22. Amos Oliver Doyle Avatar

    Very nice 7/25/16 comment Michael. – AOD

  23. Juan Avatar
    Juan

    The virtual reality model we can say that is based on the source code / user interface in the computer world: our experiences are real, but it is not the foundation, but only a user interface to facilitate our move by reality. The foundation of reality is the source code of the interface, the Kantian noumenon, the spiritual reality that ultimately would be God.
    Maybe you want to read this article:
    http://cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/ConsciousRealism2.pdf

  24. Bruce Siegel Avatar
    Bruce Siegel

    Eric said:
    “This is because, as I read it, it is trying to say that what is outside the VR game is more real than what is inside of it . . .My understanding is that it is all a matter of where one focuses one’s awareness. When the focus is on the physical world, the physical world is real.”
    Yet NDErs and other mystics have a different tale to tell. Time and again they return to ordinary consciousness from a realm they insist is more real than this one. Often, they’ll say that stepping outside the body was like waking up from a dream.
    I’m sure you’ve seen those words written over and over. And never, that I’m aware of, the opposite.
    And even after years of being back in the body, presumably now deeply immersed in physical reality, earthly life still seems less real to them than the spiritual world they left behind.
    Meaningful, yes, but not as real.
    Why is that?

  25. SPatel Avatar
    SPatel

    @ Eric Newhill: Good point on the claims about what is illusion and what is not.
    I do think there is a corruption of Buddhism by materialists, especially the New Atheist types, trying to co-opt an immaterialist metaphysics and shoe-horn it into the idea that consciousness is an illusion. (In India there was a materialist school of metaphysics but it fell apart and dissolved centuries ago.)
    As you say, consciousness as the experiencing “I” may be illusory but the Awareness is not only real but the very Ground of the Real.

  26. Simon Oakes Avatar
    Simon Oakes

    SPatel: Given your comments on Buddhism you (and hopefully others) might find this discussion between Rupert Sheldrake & Mark Vernon on the viability of a secular Buddhism of interest (like you they are sceptical):
    http://www.markvernon.com/friendshiponline/dotclear/index.php?post/2016/07/11/Can-there-be-a-secular-Buddhism

  27. Eric Newhill Avatar
    Eric Newhill

    “Why is that?” – Bruce
    Highly shocking novel experiences leave a lasting mark. The brevity of the experience means it never got stale. So one can always reflect with marvel on that brief encounter with another world.
    There are soldiers who have described combat as “realer than real” (although, admittedly, some others say it was “unreal”).
    When the focus of awareness shifts, the energy that was used to hold it in its habitual place – a considerable amount of “mental” energy – is freed and that freeing of energy is, in and of itself, ecstatic. The ecstasy takes over the emotions and colors the perceptions. This adds to the sense of realer than real.
    Finally, spiritual “eyes” and “ears”, etc. are not limited by imperfect physical filters (like the physical structures of the physical eye). So using spirit senses further adds to the feeling of being realer.

  28. Bruce Siegel Avatar

    Eric said:
    “Highly shocking novel experiences leave a lasting mark.”
    A car accident is a highly shocking novel experience for someone who’s never had one. But do people say it’s like waking up from a dream? Or that it seems more real than other experiences? Certainly not as consistently as they say it of the NDE.
    “The brevity of the experience means it never got stale. “
    What exactly do you mean by staleness, and how does brevity eliminate it? Give an example.
    You could make the opposite argument. NDE’s seem to happen in a timeless ream, and are often described as going on for a seeming eternity. So brevity may only apply to how the experience is perceived by the outside observer.
    “There are soldiers who have described combat as “realer than real” (although, admittedly, some others say it was “unreal”)”
    Right, so not a good example. And people rarely say the NDE seems unreal.
    “When the focus of awareness shifts, the energy that was used to hold it in its habitual place – a considerable amount of “mental” energy – is freed and that freeing of energy is, in and of itself, ecstatic. The ecstasy takes over the emotions and colors the perceptions. “
    I’m not getting this. Could you give an example?
    “Finally, spiritual “eyes” and “ears”, etc. are not limited by imperfect physical filters (like the physical structures of the physical eye). So using spirit senses further adds to the feeling of being realer.”
    I agree! But I don’t see how this works for your argument. In the spiritual realm, our limitations do indeed fall away, leaving us closer to our original divine state. And yes, that’s why the NDE feels like—and is—an experience of greater authenticity.

  29. Art Avatar
    Art

    Our brain takes information in the form of electrical signals and turns them into thoughts, pictures, words, etc. Information is fed through the senses and then nerve impulses turn those signals into what we perceive to be reality.
    The same thing happens on the other side only the information is spread throughout the entire hologram, with each piece containing all the information of the whole, past, present, and future, nothing is separate, and everything is interconnected, so whatever the soul or consciousness focuses on that is what we perceive on the other side.
    So the physics we experience on the other side will be very different from the physics we currently enjoy here. Instead of only being in one space or time – at a time – we will be connected to all space and all time, and whatever we focus our mind on that is what we will “see” and experience, and instead of information coming in a streaming manner it is fed to us as boluses of information because that is the way a hologram work. Information will be instantly downloaded into our consciousness instantaneously.
    Excerpt from Mark Horton’s NDE description:
    “I was pure intellect, absorbing information and knowledge through “sensors” or means that I have no concept of. From this vantage point, I had to merely think of a place and time and I was there, experiencing everything about the place and time and people present.”
    http://celestial.kuriakon00.com/nde/mark_horton.htm

  30. Juan Avatar
    Juan

    It should be noted that there are several meanings of “real”: If real is what exists, then all ambits of consciousness are real and it makes no sense to say that something is more real than another, because either it is real or not real. However, real can be the foundation of what we observe, so that the real would be God or the source code according to virtual reality model. Or real can be quality of the lucidity and clarity, so it makes sense that NDEs are more real than the experiences of incarnate beings.

  31. Kathleen Avatar
    Kathleen

    Bruce, you pen some thought-provoking comments. Yes, I’ve read hundreds of NDEs, and that was one of the recurring themes, that it felt realer than real. In what I believe was an NDE (I was knocked unconscious), it did feel very very real – not like a dream at all – and I was just overjoyed, maybe because I saw a departed loved one quite alive and well, but also because of a great sense of freedom. Whatever it was though, it didn’t last long. I was in a very wide open place and there was a low stone wall a little bit away. And then I was just gone. At first I wondered how it could have been an NDE since I was just knocked unconscious, I foolishly didn’t think that could kill you. Despite the trauma of it, the next day I was really overjoyed with the NDE experience.

  32. Julie Baxter Avatar
    Julie Baxter

    Art writes: “and instead of information coming in a streaming manner it is fed to us as boluses of information because that is the way a hologram work. Information will be instantly downloaded into our consciousness instantaneously.”
    And that’s exactly what happened to me in my NDE-like experience as a nine-year-old child. A huge amount of information and recognition sliced through my brain In a microsecond. I was for an instant somewhere else with a completely different awareness. It was a kind of state-dependent-learning recollection: the mental dimension I entered was immediately recognisable and felt like waking suddenly from a dream.
    A few years ago, I read a description of somthing called an ‘information bomb’. I think it was in a book or article by Groff. But I’ve never been able to find that reference again. Information bomb is a perfect description of what I experienced.

  33. Julie Baxter Avatar
    Julie Baxter

    Ps. Stanislav Grof.

  34. Bruce Siegel Avatar
    Bruce Siegel

    Thanks, Kathleen. It sounds you like did indeed have an NDE—several signs point to it!

  35. Eric Newhill Avatar
    Eric Newhill

    ““When the focus of awareness shifts, the energy that was used to hold it in its habitual place – a considerable amount of “mental” energy – is freed and that freeing of energy is, in and of itself, ecstatic. The ecstasy takes over the emotions and colors the perceptions. “
    I’m not getting this. Could you give an example?”
    IMO, we create the world as we know with an internal dialogue; both our thoughts that “hear” and subconscious structures that are so habitual that we don’t even recognize that they exist. This is contrary to the natural way our awareness wants to be, which is fluid.
    Everything in the universe in made of energy. That includes us. It takes energy to maintain the habitual focus of awareness in its habitual location on the infinite spectrum of energy waves that are available to us because we are fighting against the natural fluidity of awareness. When sleep, our awareness is allowed to roam more freely. That is why we wake up feeling refreshed. When we meditate and become silent within, we surrender in the fight to maintain habitual focus and we feel calmer and refreshed as a result.
    If we are able to maintain consciousness as we descend into the sleep stage (or in deep meditation, we can experience a total shift of focus away from the body/physical world and have “OBEs” and even explore totally different worlds (i.e. energy bands). The cessation of bodily functions – or even the severe threat of imminent cessation – can cause the awareness to shift focus to astral realms (i.e. other available energy bands) and we experience NDEs and the like.
    To my mind, calling one of these perceptual options more real than other is completely arbitrary and merely indicates a preference based on a dislike of this particular option and utopian thinking.

  36. Bruce Siegel Avatar

    Eric said:
    “IMO, we create the world as we know with an internal dialogue; both our thoughts that “hear” and subconscious structures that are so habitual that we don’t even recognize that they exist. This is contrary to the natural way our awareness wants to be, which is fluid.”
    Later:
    “To my mind, calling one of these perceptual options more real than other is completely arbitrary and merely indicates a preference based on a dislike of this particular option and utopian thinking.”
    Aren’t you contradicting yourself? In the first paragraph, you talk about “the natural way our awareness wants to be.” What’s the difference between “natural” and “real”? Aren’t you too looking at one option, one way of being, and calling it more real?
    The fact is, you and I could theorize all day about what’s real or natural, and it may well be based, as you say, on our preferences.
    For me, the bottom line is that when someone emerges from an experience as unique and profound as an NDE, I am eager to hear what he has to say. And if person after person describes that encounter as more real than waking consciousness, and if what he says jibes perfectly with my own experiences in states of awareness I consider to be aligned with NDE . . . . well, I’ll leave it at that.
    “That is why we wake up feeling refreshed. When we meditate and become silent within, we surrender in the fight to maintain habitual focus and we feel calmer and refreshed as a result.”
    Ironically, we’re singing the same tune. “Calmer and refreshed” certainly sounds “realer” to me. And the epitome of the “surrendered fight” is giving up the body in death, as we venture beyond the “habitual focus” you talk about, and transition into the unfiltered, the unlimited, the real.

  37. Juan Avatar
    Juan

    “To my mind, calling one of these perceptual options more real than other is completely arbitrary and merely indicates a preference based on a dislike of this particular option and utopian thinking.”
    Have not you read my comment? If real is what there is, then I’m with you, but if real is the foundation of what is observed, then the spiritual realm is real and the material realm only a shadow.

  38. Bruce Siegel Avatar

    Julie said:
    “A few years ago, I read a description of somthing called an ‘information bomb’. I think it was in a book or article by Groff. But I’ve never been able to find that reference again.”
    I see such references often, Julie. Here’s one:
    “Some of the terms Monroe invented go further than these approximations. An especially useful one is Rote, meaning a thought ball—a packet of thought/mentation, total memory, involving knowledge, information, experience, and history, an idea or concept complete in itself. ”
    Eric, note Julie’s comment about what she calls her NDE-like experience:
    “It was a kind of state-dependent-learning recollection: the mental dimension I entered was immediately recognisable and *felt like waking suddenly from a dream*.” [emphasis mine}

  39. Bruce Siegel Avatar

    Julie, in my last comment referring to Monroe, that’s Robert Monroe, in case you’re not familiar with the famous out-of-body explorer.

  40. Julie Baxter Avatar
    Julie Baxter

    Thanks, Bruce, that’s and excellent link/insight. I’ll take a deeper look at Monroe’s work. I do know what the ‘NDErs’ mean by realer than real. I remember the details and the feelings of that experience as if it was only yesterday. For a second or so, everything clicked into place.

  41. Eric Newhill Avatar
    Eric Newhill

    “Ironically, we’re singing the same tune. “Calmer and refreshed” certainly sounds “realer” to me. And the epitome of the “surrendered fight” is giving up the body in death, as we venture beyond the “habitual focus” you talk about, and transition into the unfiltered, the unlimited, the real.”
    Bruce, We give up one habitual focus for another. Think about “Summerland”. It’s an artifact of the old earthly habitual focus. Think about all the ADCs that talk about how souls “progress” in the afterlife – that’s a moving from focus to focus.
    Each new focus represents a complete and internally consistent world that is built and maintained by mental or spiritual energy being devoted to it to the exclusion of other perceptual options. So how can any one of these options be more “real” when they are all formed in the same manner?

  42. Art Avatar
    Art

    When I say the word “Zebra” a whole bunch of information instantaneously accompanies it in your brain, horse like creature, Africa, African plains, etc. You instantly see a picture of a Zebra in its natural habitat. When you think of a subject, everything you know about that subject becomes instantly accessible.
    It’s a “packet” of information and it is instantly available to you. That is how a hologram works and that is how our brain works, holographically. Because of the connectedness and oneness of the other side, the place we call heaven, when we die our consciousness becomes instantly connected to the entire Universe, the entire hologram, and “all information” becomes accessible.
    NDE’ers say “I was the Universe” or “Me and the Universe were one” or “I literally felt like I was everywhere in the Universe at once.” It’s a different way of accessing information, something very different from what we experience here. And like I keep saying (I know “over and over”) the physics of the other side is very different from the physics we experience here.
    But the interesting thing is that NDE’ers say that it feels completely normal there. But when we come back here we only have access to information the way this Universe allows it which is linearly or sequentially instead of in a packet or bolus of information.
    We don’t get “thought balls” in this life, or it happens rarely. Sometimes we have brief glimmers of it and it seems we get brief insights of brilliance. Maybe that is what happens with savants whose brains allow moments of brilliance with dates, numbers, music, painting, etc.

  43. Bruce Siegel Avatar
    Bruce Siegel

    Eric said:
    “So how can any one of these options be more “real” when they are all formed in the same manner?”
    In much the same way that we choose, in interacting with friends and family, how authentic we want to be. How fully are we willing to commit to our rock-bottom truth, rather than pretending to be what we’re not?
    And you’ve proven my point with your own remark:
    “Think about all the ADCs that talk about how souls “progress” in the afterlife – that’s a moving from focus to focus.”
    Yes it is, and how can we talk of progress unless we’re assuming that we advance from the unreal to the real? Anything else is mere change.
    Take biological evolution, for example. As I see it, there’s no spiritual progress as we move from mineral to plant to animal. They’re all equally close to Spirit. (Though I know, because of our human self-inflation, this is controversial.)
    Now contrast that to true spiritual advancement—that’s what we see portrayed in so many of the films and books that move us, perhaps in profound experiences like NDE’s, and hopefully in our own lives as we mature. And it’s what’s referred to in those ADC’s you mention.
    And always, it entails moving from the unreal to the real. (In stages, as you say.) For what else would constitute true progress?

  44. Bruce Siegel Avatar
    Bruce Siegel

    Eric, one more thought.
    Remember, in talking about “the natural way our awareness wants to be, which is fluid,” aren’t you yourself hinting at what’s real about us? The wide open perspective that characterizes our true nature, and towards which we are advancing?
    It’s hard to interpret your words any other way.

  45. Eric Newhill Avatar
    Eric Newhill

    Bruce – Do we say the person we were when we started an endeavor wasn’t “real” compared to the person we are when we complete it? ex; The real me is the guy with a masters degree, not the undergrad student. Or is the real person the 65 year old retiree and the 30 year old beginning a career is an illusion? Do we say the summer is the “real” climate and the winter is illusory?
    You’re confusing realization of potentials with realness.
    Which is different from the VR hypothesis (or model) which has it that this world isn’t “real” because it is merely a simulation or reflection of some real substrate. Which I am rejecting because I don’t think there is such a substrate other than awareness itself and the power to focus it and create worlds.

  46. chel Avatar
    chel

    I’d really appreciate hearing people’s thoughts on this: http://clinicallydepressedpug.tumblr.com/post/136195023005/raychjackson-stop-all-that-you-attract-what
    I do have a deep loathing for the Law of Attraction stuff going round, because it’s blaming victims of bad circumstances and telling me I’m having problems because I’m not wishing hard enough for them to go away. I thought we got past that by the time Princess and the Frog came out. (“That old star can only take you part of the way.”)

  47. Bruce Siegel Avatar
    Bruce Siegel

    Eric said:
    “Do we say the summer is the “real” climate and the winter is illusory?”
    Of course not. This is change, not progress.
    “Is the real person the 65 year old retiree and the 30 year old beginning a career is an illusion?”
    I don’t equate authenticity/spiritual progress to career advancement. As we all know, the guy with the most financial success can also be the phoniest, the one most deeply entangled in illusion.
    But you still haven’t answered my questions, Eric.
    1. If you really believe, as you stated, that “the natural way our awareness wants to be, is fluid‚” doesn’t that imply a way of being, a state of consciousness, that is more fundamental or real? If not, what do you mean by “natural”?
    2. You’ve said that you believe we advance spiritually in stages. If we don’t progress towards greater authenticity, what *do* we move towards? And if the answer is love (as I believe), isn’t it because love is our true nature, though we do our best to push it away? Or is love some sort of add-on, a foreign quality we have to acquire?
    For me, becoming real means knowing love as our true nature, and nowhere is that epitomized more perfectly than in the NDE.
    And yes, to love is to be fluid, to stop hanging onto whatever it is we hope will make us feel safe. In other words, as you suggest, to move beyond our limited focus.
    But please, Eric-—my two questions!

  48. Eric Newhill Avatar
    Eric Newhill

    “But please, Eric-—my two questions!”
    Bruce, you’re trying, in very lawyerly fashion, to use my words to groom your hobby horse.
    Q1: Back to the radio analogy – I’m saying that dials on radios were built and intended to move to receive signals from a wide range of different stations. Out of habit, most people find a favorite station and just leave the radio set there (or maybe they have a few stations they listen to for different moods). There are many stations they never listen to. I’m not saying that’s wrong, only that an adventuresome person would want to experience the full range potentials out there on the airwaves. Some rock and roll, some jazz, some classical, some right wing talk radio, some leftwing talk radio, some ball games, some preachers, so on and so forth. None of these stations is more real than the other. It’s silly, IMO, to say that jazz is more real than rock ‘n roll. Or that the radio dial infrequently moved is less real than a dial that is moved frequently and to a wide variety of stations.
    Q2: I didn’t say hat spirits advance in stages. Spirits say that. I’m still not convinced that they know what they are talking about or that they can be trusted to communicate accurate information (maybe if they really want to, they just can’t because our concepts are so different from theirs).
    “For me, becoming real means knowing love as our true nature, and nowhere is that epitomized more perfectly than in the NDE….” That’s where your dial is stuck. If it makes you happy, then great! But it’s not what I’m talking about. I reject that it is some ultimate truth. I see no reason or evidence to accept that it is.

  49. Roger Knights Avatar
    Roger Knights

    Tonight, Wednesday, at 12 PM Pacific, Stephen Schwartz will be on Coast to Coast AM radio for 2 hours.

  50. Steve Echard Musgrave Avatar

    You ask me why I stay on the Blue Mountain
    I smile but I do not answer
    OH my Mind is at Ease
    Peach blossoms and streams pass without Trace
    How different from the mundane World
    LI PO
    In the point in the Dream where the dreamer is gone herself,where only the dream is there,without reference to language and word,objective and subjective. A tree is a Tree a brook a brook not outside or inside,not deep or far,not different, not same,there you will find the meaning.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Michael Prescott's Blog

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading