feed-image RSS

Starting on April 15, 2016 the Institute for Venture Science (IVS) will be accepting pre-proposals for the funding of unconventional scientific investigations that challenge mainstream paradigms. Early submittal is key as they may need to limit the number of submissions; the deadline is June 25.

IVS is interested in a wide range of subjects, from gravity, magnetism, relativity and the physics of water to consciousness, NDEs and remote viewing to cancer and global warming. They hope to foster breakthroughs that will enrich the world and create solutions for otherwise intractable problems.

"The Institute for Venture Science (IVS) will fund high-risk, non-traditional scientific inquiries that may produce fundamental breakthroughs. We identify the most promising challenges to prevailing paradigms. We then simultaneously fund multiple research groups worldwide for each selected challenge."

"The IVS will fund the idea, not just the person advancing that idea. That is, it will seek out and fund multiple groups using diverse approaches to pursue the same unconventional idea. A dozen – even a half dozen - groups cannot be ignored. Challenger and orthodoxy will therefore compete on equal footing, and the better of the two approaches will soon prevail."

IVS Pre-proposal Instructions

The world of science is in the midst of unprecedented soul-searching at present. The credibility of science rests on the widespread assumption that results are replicable, and that high standards are maintained by anonymous peer review. These pillars of belief are crumbling. In September 2015, the international scientific journal Nature published a cartoon showing the temple of “Robust Science” in a state of collapse. What is going on?

Drug companies sounded an alarm several years ago. They were concerned that an increasing proportion of clinical trials was failing, and that much of their research effort was being wasted. When they looked into the reasons for their lack for success, they realized that they were basing projects on scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals, on the assumption that most of the results were reliable. But when they looked more closely, they found that most of these papers, even those in top-tier academic journals, were not reproducible. In 2011, German researchers in the drug company Bayer found in an extensive survey that more than 75% of the published findings could not be validated.

The WPA (World Psychiatric Association) has just approved the Position Statement on Spirituality and Religion in Psychiatry that was proposed by the WPA Section on Religion, Spirituality and Psychiatry.

Based on surveys showing the relevance of religion/spirituality (R/S) to most of world's population and on more than 3,000 empirical studies investigating the relationship between R/S and health, it is now well established that R/S have significant implications for prevalence, diagnosis, treatment, outcomes and prevention, as well as for quality of life and wellbeing.

The statement stresses that, for a comprehensive and person-centered approach, R/S should be considered in research, training and clinical care in psychiatry. It will be published as a paper at the February 2016 issue of the WPA journal World Psychiatry.

WPA section on Religion, Spirituality and Psychiatry

Alexander Moreira-Almeida, MD, PhD
- Associate Professor of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Brazil
- Director of the Research Center in Spirituality and Health (NUPES) at UFJF, Brazil
- Chair of the Section on Religion, Spirituality and Psychiatry of the World Psychiatric Association

This essay by Ashish Dalela was written in response to the call for essays by the Royal Institute of Philosophy for their yearly essay contest. For those concerned with post-materialist science, it's a worthy read.


An assumption implicit in this question is that non-living objects probably don’t present a problem for materialism, because if that weren’t the case, we would be asking if materialism is a sound approach for all of science and not just the study of living forms. In this essay I will argue that: (1) the problem of materialism is not unique to living forms, but exists even for non-living things, and (2) the problem originates not in materialism per se but from reductionism which reduces big things (or wholes) to small things (or parts). Reduction has been practiced in all areas of science – physics, mathematics, and computing, apart from biology – and it makes all scientific theories either inconsistent or incomplete. This is a fundamental issue and cannot be overcome, unless our approach to reduction is inverted: rather than reduce big things to small things, we must now reduce the small things to big things. This new kind of reduction can be attained if both big and small were described as ideas: the big is now an abstract concept while the small is a contingent concept, and contingent concepts are produced from abstract concepts by adding information. This leads us to a view of nature in which objects are also ideas – just more detailed than the abstractions in the mind; the abstract ideas precede the detailed ideas. When the reduction is inverted, a new kind of materialism emerges which is free from its current problems. This materialism presents a new theory of inanimate matter, not just living forms.

Read Full Essay

Kathleen Noble, Ph.D.
Professor of Consciousness
School of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math
University of Washington-Bothell

In One Mind, a sweeping journey through the landscapes of consciousness, Larry Dossey says “I know a way out of hell.” (2013) Hell, of course, is the mess we humans have created for ourselves and for all the inhabitants of this fragile biosphere as a direct result of the limited and limiting materialist mindset that has dominated science since the 17th century. It may or may not be too late for humans to pull back from the brink, but one thing is clear: without the widespread recognition that we are nonphysical beings enjoying a physical existence that is embedded in a vast multidimensional reality we cannot hope to begin the journey back to a sane and healthy future.

For those of us who have spent many years studying, teaching, and practicing an integrative approach to Consciousness, Dr. Dossey’s call to action is not new – but it is nonetheless much needed. As Einstein warned us long ago, “no problem can be solved at the same level of consciousness that created it.” We know all too well what problems are caused by the materialist mindset. We also know that a profoundly different mindset is necessary to solve them. And we have abundant evidence to draw upon in determining what this mindset could be. After all, we have 150 years of increasingly robust scientific data that clearly show the vast nature, range, and power of consciousness. We have ancient spiritual practices like yoga and meditation that offer us intricate maps of consciousness and its possibilities and permutations. We have clinical cartographies from millions of people who have survived encounters with death and returned to life thanks to advances in resuscitation science and their own intrepid wills. And we have impressive evidence from ancient and contemporary dreamers that we can harness the power of dreams to reveal creations and solutions that cannot be perceived within the confines of the rational waking mind. Granted, we are still arguing with and against the materialist mindset that has systematically denied and sequestered this evidence, but as Thomas Kuhn (1962, 2012) revealed in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, paradigms in their death throes always fight back, most vituperatively when they are about to be supplanted by a new paradigm that has already taken shape.

But back to Einstein. We clearly need to bring an expanded level of consciousness to solve the problems we have created through a reductionist mindset. The question is how to do this to greatest effect at this critical juncture in human history. To my mind, educating a new generation of consciousness scholars and scientists is crucial. Certainly the general public is increasingly aware of the power of the mind thanks to the great work of scientists and scholars like Rupert Sheldrake (2012, 1999), Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer (2007), Dean Radin (2006), Sharon Begley (2007), Alan Wallace (2008), Jeremy Narby (1999), William James (1902), Pim Van Lommel (2007), Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne (1987), Larry Dossey (2013), Charles Tart (2009), Robert Waggoner (2009) and many, many others. But this collective body of scholarship has yet to make significant inroads into mainstream academia, which is where scientists and scholars are born. This dearth is not for lack of trying, yet pioneering programs like William James’ at Harvard, the Rhines’ at Duke, Jahn’s and Dunne’s at Princeton, and Charles Tart’s at UC Davis did not outlast the death or retirement of their founders. No one should underestimate the power of the old paradigm and its death grip on higher education. Indeed, I suspect that there are many scholars and scientists in academia who are personally or professionally committed to an integrative approach to consciousness but who are closeted because of the resistance and/or hostility of their materialist colleagues. Having experienced this firsthand I am under no delusion about the difficulties that confront us.

Still, our mission – should we choose to accept Larry Dossey’s challenge - is not only to create a new field of inquiry that is integrative and transdisciplinary in nature and scope, but also to train a new generation that is prepared to take consciousness seriously. Given that so many amongst the current leadership in Consciousness are aging, retiring, or reincarnating, the training of the next generation is a matter of great urgency. It is they who, in the words of Kuhn, are “less committed than their contemporaries to the world view and rules determined by the old paradigm” (1962, 2012, 143) and it is they, therefore, who, properly trained, will propel the study of consciousness into the next century and beyond.

This is a mission that I have been embarked upon at the University of Washington since 2000, first on its Seattle campus and, for the past five years, on its younger Bothell campus (UWB). My purpose here is to share my current efforts with the readers of OpenScience.org and to encourage the creation of an international academic community that can, in turn, create educational opportunities for a new generation of consciousness scholars.

At the outset I must confess that consciousness has had me firmly in its grip since 1975, when 3 powerful and profound near death experiences blasted me out of law school and set me on a path that I’ve been travelling ever since. I recount those experiences at length in my book Riding the Windhorse: Spiritual Intelligence and the Growth of the Self (Noble, 2001) and won’t reiterate them here except to say that I returned to life convinced, like Dr. Dossey, that a deeper understanding of the nature of consciousness and reality were critical to the maturation and survival of the human species. That awareness led me to graduate school and licensure in clinical and counseling psychology and eventually to the faculty of the University of Washington, Seattle where – amongst other responsibilities - I spent many years trying to create an integrative program in consciousness but succeeding only in teaching one course each year for the Honors Program. Finally, after a conversation with the then-Provost in which she stated baldly that “there would never be consciousness on this campus,” I decided the time had come to look elsewhere. Elsewhere turned out to be the more interdisciplinary and innovative Bothell campus where a new School of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math was forming under the leadership of Professor Warren Buck, a former UWB Chancellor, professor of physics, and practicing Buddhist. He believed that the addition of Consciousness to the traditional STEM curricula would help to expand the minds of both students and faculty and he invited me to do just that. Thus, to the shock and discomfiture of several traditionalists in the School, I joined their faculty and began the long and arduous process of creating what is now officially known as the Minor in Consciousness.

Why a minor rather than a major? There were two primary reasons. First, a minor reaches the largest number of students without their having to compromise their vocational plans by majoring in something which isn’t yet recognized as either a legitimate area of academic inquiry or a career path. Second, a minor brings together students from many different disciplines – business, nursing, biology, psychology, education, computer science – and encourages them to recognize the ways that consciousness can inform and transform the ideas and issues they care about most.

The Minor in Consciousness formally launched in September 2014, becoming the first of its kind in a School of STEM at a public research university. As stated in the General Catalog: The Consciousness minor investigates the nature, dynamics, and functions of the mind through the perspectives of psychology, neuroscience, physics, biology, and contemplative practices. It utilizes both objective and subjective methods to explore levels of awareness, the intersection of mind and matter, and ways to enhance individual and collective well-being.

Currently there are five permanent courses that comprise the core of the minor, all of which I developed and teach. These are:

BCONSC 321: Consciousness Studies: Introduces the field of consciousness studies. Explores the interaction of mind and body through scientific studies of dreams, intuition, intention, and anomalous phenomena. Includes the role of meditation and contemplative practices in physiological and psychological well-being.

BCONSC 322: Exploration of Consciousness: Deeper inquiry into the nature of consciousness and the interaction of mind and body. Topics include the biology of compassion and belief, the role of attention and intention in neuroplasticity, experimental studies of meditation and mental training in promoting psychological and physical health; and the emergence of an integral paradigm of the mind.

BCONSC 323: Psychology and Science of Dreams: Explores the psychology and science of dreams. Topics include the history and theories of dreams, modern experimental studies of dreaming and dream content, lucid dreams, contribution of dreams to scientific creativity, and dream incubation and interpretation techniques.

BCONSC 424: Consciousness and the Natural World: Explores emerging models of consciousness in the natural world. Topics include scientific and shamanic research about animal and plant consciousness and the ethical implications of this inquiry for human interaction with other species.

BCONSC 425: Consciousness and Well-Being: Focuses on understanding the non-local dynamics of human consciousness. Topics include entanglement and attunement as underlying principles of psychological and physical reality, experimental and phenomenological studies of shared consciousness with humans and other species, and ways to expand the mind and promote health and well-being.

Students can also elect to take two other courses that, while not focused on consciousness, help them extend their new awareness into behavioral biology and cosmology.

The Minor’s educational goals for students are both personal and professional. Again as stated in the General Catalog: As a result of completing the minor, students will be prepared to explore the complex relationships among mind, brain, and body with scientific rigor and open minds. They will be able to converse about the relationship of mind and matter with contemporary scientists and contemplative scholars, comparing and contrasting different approaches, and assessing their strengths and limitations. They will learn contemplative practices that have been proven to help them concentrate, increase their motivation and persistence, enhance their higher order thinking skills, and achieve a greater sense of equanimity. These skills will help them cope with the increasingly complex problems of the contemporary world and contribute creatively to their solutions. Students will be encouraged to become more reflective, compassionate, insightful, and resilient, to cultivate their self-awareness, and to consider carefully the consciousness and needs of other species and the biosphere. As a result, students will gain a greater sense of meaning and purpose, an enhanced capacity to draw upon and integrate different forms of knowledge, and a heightened ability to utilize inner resources to live mindfully at home, at work, and in their communities. Three years of research into whether students’ experiences meet these expectations is currently underway and should be ready for publication in 2016.

Thus far, more than 300 hundred undergraduates have enrolled in one or more courses and the minor’s reputation has spread rapidly amongst the student population. Introductory courses (BCONSC 321 and 323) are fully subscribed shortly after they open for registration and their waiting lists are long. Many students report that they have to wait several years to gain entry into 321, which is a prerequisite for all courses in the Minor with the exception of 323. Unfortunately, the situation is not likely to resolve in their favor in the immediate future because of the continuing opposition of materialist colleagues to increasing students’ access to the conversation about consciousness. For example, at a recent faculty meeting when I argued the need for additional faculty, the chair of my division vowed that he would “never vote for a faculty member who wasn’t a materialist.” Another junior colleague opined that “she went to church and believed in god but didn’t believe that religion should be taught as science.” (“Neither do I, I replied….that’s not what consciousness is about”.) Still another snidely dismissed the study of consciousness in general and Rupert Sheldrake’s work in particular as “pseudoscience”, although when I asked him which of Sheldrake’s experiments or books he found objectionable, he admitted, not surprisingly, that he had read none. And then there was the colleague who offered me the unsolicited advice that if I wanted his – and STEM’s - support, I would start to teach consciousness from a materialist perspective. Anyone who takes an integrative approach to consciousness has heard such comments as a matter of course. Needless to say I have yet to acquire the resources to recruit more faculty for Consciousness, although UWB’s traditional STEM programs have grown exponentially in recent years.

Still, there is reason for hope. It was a five year uphill battle to create and implement the Minor; indeed, there were many occasions when it seemed due to die before it was born. Yet the way that the minor achieved final approval despite institutional opposition is perhaps the most important part of this story. The Minor in Consciousness would never have surmounted the hurdles it faced were it not for the burgeoning and unwavering enthusiasm of the students who flocked to the courses from Day One. A particularly dedicated group of five formed an officially sanctioned UWB Consciousness Club in 2012, and when the minor first went to the academic council for its review in 2013 they wrote a powerful letter of support that articulated their personal experiences of transformation as a result of exposure to the material. Unfortunately neither the council nor the administration was swayed by their eloquence and the proposal languished on a Vice-Chancellor’s desk for almost a year before the students decided to act. This time a group of about 50, led by Consciousness Club officers and alumni, petitioned the student government for a resolution that the administration approve the minor based on student demand. After all, students said, they were paying the tuition. To everyone’s surprise the next day the paperwork was signed and sent off on the last leg of the approval process. Four months later, in March 2014, the minor was authorized by the president of the university and formally launched the following September.

Now, the next phase of our project has begun. Given the administrative resistance to Consciousness, its future on this campus is uncertain unless means can be found to render it financially sustainable. To that end a dedicated group of students, alumni, and colleagues like Paul Revis of SetScienceFree.org, are working with me on a crowd-sourcing campaign to raise funds to create a Center for Education and Research in Consciousness (CERC) at UWB. The mission of CERC is to recruit additional faculty, expand the undergraduate program to include a major, create a transdisciplinary Ph.D. in Consciousness, generate original research, and host community educational forums. If the campaign is successful we will hold a symposium in 2016 and invite the leading minds in the field to brainstorm and broadcast educational curricula that can prepare a new generation of Consciousness scientists and scholars. We may or may not succeed, but if we are to find our way out of hell, we have to try. On behalf of all the students, alumni, and colleagues who are committed to this cause, I invite you to join us.


Begley, S. (2007). Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain. NY: Ballantine.

Dossey, L. (2013) One Mind: How Our Individual Mind is Part of a Greater Consciousness and Why It Matters. CA: Hay House 2013.

James, W. (1902). Varieties of Religious Experience. NY: Modern Library.

Jahn, R.G., and Dunne, B.J. (1987). Margins of Reality: The role of consciousness in the physical world. NY Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987

Kuhn TS (1962, 2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. IL: U of Chicago Press1962

Mayer, E.L. (2007). Extraordinary Knowing: Science, Skepticism, and the Inexplicable Powers of the Human Mind. NY: Bantam Books.

Narby, J. (1999). The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge. NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam.

Noble, K.D. (2001). Riding the Windhorse: Spiritual Intelligence and the Growth of the Self. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Radin, D. (2006). Entangled Minds: Extrasensory experiences in a quantum reality. NY: Pocket Books.

Sheldrake, R. (2012). Science Set Free. NY: Deepak Chopra Books.

Sheldrake, R. (1999). Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home. NY: Three Rivers Press.

Tart, C. (2009). The end of materialism. CA: New Harbinger Publications, Inc.

Van Lommel, P. (2010). Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience. NY: HarperCollins.

Waggoner, R. (2009). Lucid Dreaming: Gateway to the Inner Self. Needham, MA: Moment Point Press.

Wallace, B.A., and Hodel, B. (2008). Embracing Mind: The Common Ground of Science and Spirituality. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Psychiatrists’ views on the mind-brain relationship (MBR) have marked clinical and research implications, but there is a lack of studies on this topic.


To evaluate psychiatrists’ opinions on the MBR, and whether they are amenable to change or not.


We conducted a survey of psychiatrists’ views on the MBR just before and after a debate on the MBR at the Brazilian Congress of Psychiatry in 2014.


Initially, from more than 600 participants, 53% endorsed the view that “the mind (your “I”) is a product of brain activity”, while 47% disagreed. Moreover, 72% contested the view that “the universe is composed only of matter”. After the debate, 30% changed from a materialist to a non-materialist view of mind, while 17% changed in the opposite way.


Psychiatrists are interested in debates on the MBR, do not hold a monolithic view on the subject and their positions are open to reflection and change, suggesting the need for more in-depth studies and rigorous but open-minded debates on the subject.

Full text of paper

Charles Darwin was a firm believer in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In his book The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, Darwin gave many examples of the hereditary transmission of adaptations. He also published an account in Nature about dogs with an inborn fear of butchers. Their father had a violent antipathy to butchers, probably as a result of being mistreated by one, and this fear was transmitted not only to his children but also to his grandchildren.

Darwin knew nothing of genes or random mutations, which only became part of biology in the twentieth century. He put forward his own theory of heredity in the The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, entitled ‘The Provisional Hypothesis of Pangenesis.’ In order to understand, for example, how a dog could inherit something a parent had learned, or how a plant’s descendants could inherit its adaptations to a new environment, Darwin proposed that cells all over the body threw off microscopic ‘gemmules’ which somehow entered the egg and sperm or pollen cells, transforming them to make these characteristics hereditary.

The great French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Larmarck proposed decades before Darwin that habits could be inherited, and in this sense Darwin was a Lamarckian. Darwin’s theory of pangenesis was largely ignored, and was airbrushed out of twentieth-century hagiographies of Darwin. In twentieth-century biology, Lamarckian inheritance was treated as a grave heresy in the West, where Neo-Darwinism predominated. In the Soviet Union, by contrast, the inheritance of acquired characteristics was orthodox, which only intensified the prejudice against it in the capitalist world. Neo-Darwinism differs from Darwinism in attributing heredity to chemical genes, which can only change by random, purposeless mutations, and in denying the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Many neo-Darwinians are unaware that Darwin himself had very different views. Darwin was not a neo-Darwinian.

The selfish gene theory, advocated most strikingly by Richard Dawkins, took the neo-Darwinian world-view to an extreme. The genes were personified: Dawkins argued that they were selfish, and as ruthless as Chicago gangsters. They had the power to ‘mould matter’ and ‘create form.’ The genetic material, DNA, was no longer a mere molecule: it was animated and purposive. Ironically, Dawkins persuaded many of his readers that life was purposeless and mechanistic by using vitalist rhetoric, attributing minds and purposes to DNA molecules. But behind the haze of misleading metaphors about selfish molecules, he was popularizing the standard neo-Darwinian theory that evolutionary creativity occurred only by random mutations, with no purpose or direction. Evolutionary change was driven by the changes in gene frequencies in the population as a result of natural selection. Acquired characteristics could not be inherited.

Unfortunately for Neo-Darwinism, the facts do not fit the theory. The taboo on the inheritance of acquired characteristics was lifted at the beginning of the twenty-first century, with the recognition of epigenetic inheritance, meaning inheritance over and above the genes. Some kinds of epigenetic inheritance depend on small RNA molecules (sRNA), others on the methylation of DNA, others on modifications to the proteins that bind to DNA. The genes are not changed through mutation, but are switched on or off through the way they are packaged. The discovery that some of these changes are inherited through eggs, sperm and pollen marks a revolutionary change in modern biology.

Some remarkable recent studies have shown that mice can inherit their fathers’ fears, reminding us of Darwin’s report of dogs with an inherited fear of butchers. In these experiments, carried out by Brian Dias and Kerry Ressler, males were exposed to the smell of a chemical called acetophenone that they would never normally encounter in nature. They were given mild electric shocks when smelling this chemical, and soon became frightened when they smelled it again. This was a classical Pavlovian conditioned reflex. However, their children and grandchildren were also terrified of the smell of acetophenone. They were affected even when the fearful fathers’ sperm was transmitted by artificial insemination, preventing any form of cultural contact.

How could fearful responses to a smell be transmitted from noses and brains to sperm cells? Dias and Ressler suggest that molecular influences travelled through the blood stream. This sounds very like a modern version of Darwin’s gemmule hypothesis. In plants, too, there is now good evidence that sRNA molecules can move from various organs of the plant through the sap to the eggs and pollen, bringing about heritable changes that continue over generations.

To what extent can the fears of human fathers be transmitted to their offspring, even in the absence of any contact between the fathers and their children? No one knows.

Much remains to be discovered about epigenetic inheritance. But it is already clear that evolutionary theory needs to be extended or revised. The dogmas of Neo-Darwinism have been superseded. Not surprisingly, this is the subject of a lively debate within contemporary biology.

As evolutionary theory moves beyond the narrow confines of Neo-Darwinism, the question of evolutionary creativity is once again thrown open. The inheritance of learning and adaptations does not depend on random genetic mutations, but on direct transmissions from parents to offspring. Hence the creative responses of organisms to challenges are a major source of evolutionary creativity, just as Darwin thought, and as Lamarck thought before him. Darwin attributed these adaptive abilities to the ‘co-ordinating power’ inherent in living organisms. But he did not explain how this power worked, and we still do not know. But we do know that organisms themselves can be creative, and that some of their learning and adaptation can be passed on to their descendants. Evolution can happen faster and more purposefully than twentieth-century biologists allowed them to think.

Today marks the beginning of an intriguing online dialogue between the influential biologist Rupert Sheldrake and well-known skeptic Michael Shermer, hosted by TheBestSchools.org. Remarks from each will be posted simultaneously throughout the coming three months, covering the topics of materialism in science, mental action at a distance and god and science. Opening statements on materialism in science from Rupert and Michael are now online.

Rupert begins with a review of the top 10 major assumptions of modern scientific materialism, which he wrote about in his recent book The Science Delusion (UK) / Science Set Free (US), and asks Michael several questions in connection with them. The thrust of his argument is that "the sciences are best served by exploring what we do not understand, even if that leads us beyond the limitations imposed by the materialist philosophy." He wrote:

The facts of science are real enough, and so are the techniques that scientists use, and so are the technologies based on them. But the beliefs that govern conventional scientific thinking are an act of faith, grounded in a nineteenth-century ideology.

Michael's openning statements begin with a discussion of the "God of the gaps" argument, wherein any gap in scientific knowledge is explained by some supernatural cause, moving quickly to a critique of intelligent design. To Michael, people who speak of ESP, PSI or intelligent design are simply using placeholders for material causes not yet understood, implying an intellectual laziness. He argues that any true cause would ultimately be natural, not supernatural:

... regardless of what forces may be at work in our world, if they can be measured by our scientific instruments (or by our senses), then by definition they must be natural forces (regardless of what you call them). In other words, what our senses and scientific nets catch are natural fish.

Interestingly, Rupert himself has frequently emphasized that the forces at work in telepathy and other anomalous phenomena must be considered natural, rather than supernatural. As he wrote in Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields - an Introduction, "There is now good evidence that many species of animals are telepathic, and telepathy seems to be a normal means of animal communication, as discussed in my book Dogs That Know When Their Owners are Coming Home. Telepathy is normal not paranormal, natural not supernatural, and is also common between people, especially people who know each other well."

It will be interesting to see how much common ground there is, and yet I expect the differences in what these two men choose to do with the same information will remain wildly divergent. Will Michael acknowledge that unexplained phenomena like telepathy should be studied scientifically, or will he maintain that such research is pointless? Will Rupert accept that everything in nature, no matter how mysterious, is ultimately material causation at work, or will he argue that the philosophy of materialism is fundamentally flawed? Stay tuned to find out.

MAY: Materialism in Science
» Opening Statements
» Responses
» Replies to responses

JUNE: Mental Action at a Distance
» Opening Statements
» Responses
» Replies to responses

JULY: God and Science
» Opening Statements
» Responses
» Replies to responses

Despite the towering intellectual and technological achievements of twentieth-century science, its spell over us has been irreversibly weakened. There are at least two important reasons for this. First, scientist and layman alike have become aware of the limits and shortcomings of scientific knowledge. Second, we realize that our perpetual hunger for spiritual understanding is real and undeniable. It can neither be defined away by subtle logic, nor be satisfied by viewing the universe as sterile, mechanistic, and accidental.[1]

— Roger S. Jones, Physics as Metaphor

The most urgent issue we humans face is how we conceive ourselves — whether as complex lumps of matter guided by the so-called blind, meaningless laws of nature, or as creatures who, although physical, are also imbued with something more: consciousness, mind, will, choice, purpose, direction, meaning and spirituality, that difficult-to-define quality that says we are connected with something that transcends our individual self and ego. Every decision we make is influenced by how we answer this great question: Who are we?

There is growing awareness that the endless arguments between proponents of these two views are more than hairsplitting disagreements among experts, but they have real consequences for our future on earth, and perhaps whether we shall have a future.[2] As novelist and statesman André Malraux (1901-1978) said, the twenty-first century will be spiritual, or it will not be.[3]

Vaclav Havel (1936-2011), the author, poet, playwright and diplomat who was the first president of the Czech Republic, saw a hell looming in our world and had the guts to say so on the international stage. As a potential solution, he said, “It seems to me that one of the most basic human experiences, one that is genuinely universal and unites — or, more precisely, could unite — all of humanity, is the experience of transcendence in the broadest sense of the word.”[4] Havel endorsed what he called “responsibility to something higher.” In a speech to a joint session of the United States Congress on February 21, 1990, he said:

Consciousness precedes Being, and not the other way around.... [F]or this
reason, the salvation in this human world lies nowhere else than in the human heart.... Without a global revolution in the sphere of human consciousness, nothing will change for the better in the sphere of our being as humans, and the catastrophe toward which this world is headed — be it ecological, social, demographic or a general breakdown of civilization — will be unavoidable. If we are no longer threatened by world war or by the danger that the absurd mountains of accumulated nuclear weapons might blow up the world, this does not mean that we have definitely won. We are still capable of understanding that the only genuine backbone of all our actions, if they are to be moral, is responsibility. Responsibility to something higher than my family, my country, my company, my success — responsibility to the order of being where all our actions are indelibly recorded and where and only where they will be properly judged (emphasis added).[5]

There are vibrant developments in key areas of science that show real promise in humankind’s search for, and responsibility to, something higher. There are solid reasons to believe that Havel’s “global revolution in the sphere of human consciousness” may be closer than we think — that, after three centuries of a flirtation with, and seduction by, a purely physical view of who we are, another view is emerging.

The Face of Physicalism

Physicalism is the doctrine that the real world consists simply of the physical world. Its close cousin is materialism, the creed that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications, as well as the doctrine that consciousness and will are wholly due to material agency.[6]These terms are often used interchangeably.

What does physicalism actually look like? It is a multifaceted view in which, as astrophysicist David Lindley has said, “We humans are just crumbs of organic matter clinging to the surface of one tiny rock. Cosmically, we are no more significant than mold on a shower curtain.”[7] Spirituality, the sense of connectedness with something that transcends the individual self, is equated in this view with self-deception, fantasy or hallucination. In this outlook, meaning, direction, purpose and free will are absent. As philosopher Daniel Dennett puts it, “When we consider whether free will is an illusion or reality, we are looking into an abyss. What seems to confront us is a plunge into nihilism and despair.”[8] Physicalism involves the presumption that the everyday idea of mind is an exaggerated, unnecessary concept — that, according to linguist Karen Stollznow, “Thinking is just the meat talking to itself. It’s generated by the brain and when we die, unfortunately that dies with us. We can state that categorically.”[9] Or as philosopher Dennett says without a whiff of irony in his book Consciousness Explained, “We’re all zombies. Nobody is conscious.”[10] And as the Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist Francis Crick confidently proclaimed, “[A] person’s mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make up and influence them.”[11] Similarly, astronomer Carl Sagan unequivocally stated, “[The brain’s] workings — what we sometimes call mind — are a consequence of its anatomy and physiology, and nothing more.”[12] And as psychiatrist and sleep researcher Allan Hobson asserted, “Consciousness, like sleep, is of the Brain, by the Brain, and for the Brain.”[13] In sum, physicalism constitutes a bleak vision in which, as Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg said, “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.”[14]

A few science insiders have considered religion and spirituality as relatively immune from the corrosive influence of physicalism. For example, as astrophysicist Sir Arthur Eddington remarked in his Swarthmore Lecture in 1929, “Dismiss the idea that natural law may swallow up religion; it cannot even tackle the multiplication table single-handed.”[15] Others suggest that the intractable mind-versus-matter debate rests on semantic misunderstandings and is overblown. Among them is the anti-materialist British philosopher Mary Midgley, who said:

The real trouble with the mind-body problem centers on the word “materialism.” This word is itself a relic of dualism: it suggests that there are two rival stuffs — mind and matter — competing to be seen as basic to the world. It tells us to choose one of these and reduce the other to it. There are not two such separate stuffs. There is just a complex world containing complex creatures, about whom many sorts of questions arise. Each question must be answered in its own terms.... But actually our thoughts are quite as real as our coffee cups, and "matter" is every bit as obscure a concept as "mind."[16]

It has been difficult to find traction in this debate. The dominant physicalist view that mind and consciousness are products of brain function is served up within contemporary science not as a modest hypothesis or humble conjecture, but as an incontrovertible fact, and anyone who disagrees is likely to be considered an apostate or a traitor to science. As consciousness researcher Edward F. Kelly, of the University of Virginia, states in the landmark book Beyond Physicalism, “[These] well-meaning defenders of Enlightenment-style rationalism ... clearly regard themselves, and current mainstream science itself, as reliably marshaling the intellectual virtues of reason and objectivity against retreating forces of irrational authority and superstition. For them the truth of the [physicalist view] has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, and to think anything different is necessarily to abandon centuries of scientific progress, release the black flood of occultism, and revert to primitive supernaturalist beliefs characteristic of bygone times.”[17]

Mathematician and philosopher Charles Eisenstein has drawn attention to the condescending mindset that typifies physicalists who hold this view:

The unfalsifiable world-view of the [physicalist] Skeptic extends far beyond scientific paradigms to encompass a very cynical view of human nature. The debunker must buy into a world full of frauds, dupes, and the mentally unstable, where most people are less intelligent and less sane than he is, and in which apparently honest people indulge in the most outrageous mendacity for no good reason. For the witnesses are, on the face of it, sincere. How can I account for their apparent sincerity? I have to assume either (1) that this apparent sincerity is a cynical cover for the most base or fatuous motives, or (2) they are ignorant, incapable of distinguishing truth from lies and delusion.[18]

“Beats The Heck Out of Me”

The dogma of physicalism suffers from two fatal defects: the sheer poverty of evidence that brains produce consciousness, and the enormous human costs of a world that is sanitized of a spiritual outlook, which the dogma forbids.

No human has ever seen a brain or anything else produce consciousness, and there is no accepted theory as to how this could happen. This weakness is becoming obvious to an increasing number of top-tier scientists, as the following comments show. I include several examples to show that these are not rare, isolated opinions.

Steven A. Pinker, experimental psychologist at Harvard University, on how consciousness might arise from something physical, such as the brain, states, “Beats the heck out of me. I have some prejudices, but no idea of how to begin to look for a defensible answer. And neither does anyone else.”[19] Donald D. Hoffman, cognitive scientist at University of California, Irvine: “The scientific study of consciousness is in the embarrassing position of having no scientific theory of consciousness.”[20] Stuart A. Kauffman, theoretical biologist and complex-systems researcher: “Nobody has the faintest idea what consciousness is.... I don’t have any idea. Nor does anybody else, including the philosophers of mind.”[21] Roger W. Sperry, Nobel Prize-winning neurophysiologist: “Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature.”[22] Eugene P. Wigner, Nobelist in physics: “We have at present not even the vaguest idea how to connect the physio-chemical processes with the state of mind.”[23] Physicist Nick Herbert, an expert in nonlocality: “Science’s biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot.”[24] Physicist Freeman J. Dyson: “The origin of life is a total mystery, and so is the existence of human consciousness. We have no clear idea how the electrical discharges occurring in nerve cells in our brains are connected with our feelings and desires and actions.”[25] Philosopher Jerry A. Fodor, of Rutgers University: “Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness.”[26] Philosopher John R. Searle, of the University of California, Berkeley: “At the present state of the investigation of consciousness we don’t know how it works and we need to try all kinds of different ideas.”[27] Mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose: “My position [on consciousness] demands a major revolution in physics.... I’ve come to believe that there is something very fundamental missing from current science.... Our understanding at this time is not adequate and we’re going to have to move to new regions of science....”[28] Niels Bohr, one the great patriarchs of quantum physics: “We can admittedly find nothing in physics or chemistry that has even a remote bearing on consciousness.... [Q]uite apart from the laws of physics and chemistry, as laid down in quantum theory, we must also consider laws of quite a different kind.”[29] Neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield: “It will always be quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain.... Although the content of consciousness depends in large measure on neuronal activity, awareness itself does not....To me, it seems more and more reasonable to suggest that the mind may be a distinct and different essence.”[30] Sir John Maddox, the editor for[22]years of the prestigious journal Nature: “What consciousness consists of ... is ... a puzzle. Despite the marvelous successes of neuroscience in the past century... we seem as far from understanding cognitive process as we were a century ago.” [31]

Die-hard physicalists do not agree with these dismissive comments. Some physicalists tout hypotheses and theories which they believe show decisively how the brain makes consciousness. So it is not quite right to say that physicalism has no theories about the origins of consciousness; we should say, rather, that physicalism has no successful theories for such. As astrophysicist David Darling describes this impasse:

[A] growing number of scientists are now busily rummaging around in the brain trying to explain how the trick of consciousness is done. Researchers of the stature of Francis Crick, Daniel Dennett, Gerald Edelman, and Roger Penrose have recently come forward with a range of ingenious theories. All purport to explain, in one way or another, consciousness as an epiphenomenon of physical and chemical processes taking place in the brain — and all fail utterly. They fail not because their models are insufficiently accurate or detailed, but because they are trying to do what is, from the outset, impossible. [32][33]

The truth is that no account of what goes on at the mechanistic level of the brain can shed any light whatsoever on why consciousness exists. No theory can explain why the brain shouldn't work exactly as it does, yet without giving rise to the feeling we all have of "what it is like to be." And there is, I believe, a very simple reason for this. The brain does not produce consciousness at all, any more than a television set creates the programs that appear on its screen. On the contrary, the brain filters and restricts consciousness, just as our senses limit the totality of experience to which we might otherwise have access. ,

Nonetheless, the physicalistic view inspires messianic confidence in its adherents, who ardently strive to extend the physicalist caliphate into every nook and cranny of the life sciences. Their zeal can be unbounded. For example, philosopher Dennett is reported as saying that he would commit suicide if paranormal phenomena turn out to be real. [34]

The implication that there might be room in science for a spiritual component is met with derision. Special contempt is reserved for the possibility that humans might survive bodily death, for this would be the death knell for the mind-equals-brain assumption on which the physicalist doctrine rests. This is particularly obvious when physicalists themselves have near-death experiences suggesting survival following physical death. When they describe these experiences publicly, they have been bullied by their physicalist colleagues into publicly retracting any implication that something might survive the death of the body.[35][36][37][38][39]

Many physicalist skeptics consider the idea of survival of bodily death so dangerous that it must be put down at all costs. These efforts can shade into a deliberate cover-up that masquerades as an effort to protect science. Harvard psychologist William James reported that a leading biologist once told him,

Even if such a thing were true, scientists ought to band together to keep it suppressed and concealed. It would undo the uniformity of Nature and all sorts of other things without which scientists cannot carry on their pursuits.[40][41]

In defense of their credo, physicalists often maintain that they actually prefer annihilation with physical death to any sort of survival. Longing for immortality is seen as a defect of character or a philosophical sellout in people too weak-willed to face their impending doom. In the face of certain extermination, one should simply man up and go quietly, proudly and bravely into that dark night. There is a hint of this heroic martyrdom in Lord Bertrand Russell’s famous comment, “I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive.... I should scorn to shiver with terror at the thought of annihilation.” [42]

Human Costs

S]cience has gone too far in breaking down man’s belief in his spiritual greatness... and has given him the belief that he is merely an insignificant animal that has arisen by chance and necessity in an insignificant planet lost in the great cosmic immensity....”The principal trouble with mankind today is that the intellectual leaders are too arrogant in their self-sufficiency. We must realize the great unknowns in the material makeup and operation of our brains, in the relationship of brain to mind, in our creative imagination, and in the uniqueness of the psyche. When we think of these unknowns as well as the unknown of how we come to be in the first place, we should be much more humble [emphasis in original]. [43]

— Sir John Eccles, neuroscientist and Nobelist

Physicalism comes with enormous human costs, which, I believe, are vastly underestimated by the physicalist cheerleaders. Annihilation is an inescapable part of the physicalism package. Carl G. Jung, the Swiss psychiatrist, said, “The decisive question for man is: Is he related to something infinite or not? That is the telling question of his life.”[44] If consciousness is produced by the brain and vanishes with physical death, as physicalists insist, then any meaningful relationship to “something infinite” is a chimera. Jung felt so strongly about this issue that he made it a principle in his patients’ therapy. “As a doctor,” he said, “I make every effort to strengthen the belief in immortality....”[45] Novelist George Orwell was among those who decried the impact of this morbid outlook, saying, “The major problem of our time is the decay of belief in personal immortality.” [46]

In any case, one’s view of immortality depends on the meaning of time. The problem is that there is no monolithic, agreed-on definition of time in modern physics. As Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman acknowledged, “What is time? We physicists work with it every day, but don’t ask me what it is. It’s just too difficult to think about.”[47] The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein saw the relevance of the “time question” to immortality, saying, “If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present.”[48] Because of the unsettled definition of time in modern physics, physicalists might at least acknowledge that, while immortality is not affirmed in modern physics, the possibility of such is not excluded.

The human cost of a failed belief in immortality, which has helped sustain human hope for perhaps the entire span of human history, is not admitted within physicalism. The public stance of many physicalists, as mentioned, is to keep a stiff upper lip, flex one’s intellectual muscle, and deny any desire or need for such a belief. Yet the old channels within the psyche run deep, and merely declaring immortality undesirable or unnecessary does not make it so.

The fear of death is humanity’s Great Disease, the terror that has probably caused more suffering throughout history than all the physical diseases combined. As Ernest Becker said in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Denial of Death, “[T]he idea of death, the fear of it, haunts the human animal like nothing else; it is the mainspring of human activity — activity designed largely to avoid the fatality of death, to overcome it by denying in some way that it is the final destiny for man.”[49]

The physicalists’ certainties — that these issues are settled and the verdict is in: materialism reigns, and spirituality and any form of survival is self-delusion — is regarded as overheated swagger by many consciousness researchers. Kelly, for example, speaking for his colleagues, states,

We believe it takes astonishing hubris to dismiss en masse the collective experience of a large proportion of our forebears, including persons widely recognized as pillars of all human civilization, and we are united in believing that the single most important task confronting all of modernity is that of meaningful reconciliation of science and religion.... [W]e believe that emerging developments within science itself are leading inexorably in the direction of an expanded scientific understanding of nature, one that can accommodate realities of a ‘spiritual’ sort ... [50]


But not just of a spiritual sort. For instance, quantum theorist Henry P. Stapp, widely considered the current dean of quantum theorists, has expressed concern about the impact of the physicalistic views on the nitty-gritty, practical ways we live our lives. In his paper titled “Attention, Intention, and Will in Quantum Physics,” he stated, “It has become now widely appreciated that assimilation by the general public of this ‘scientific’ view, according to which each human is basically a mechanical robot, is likely to have a significant and corrosive impact on the moral fabric of society.” He warned of the “growing tendency of people to exonerate themselves by arguing that it is not ‘I’ who is at fault, but some mechanical process within: ‘my genes made me do it’; or ‘my high blood-sugar content made me do it.’”[51][52] , Stapp shows how hard-core physicalism lets us off the hook by assuming that the world unfolds on its own according to the alleged meaningless laws of nature. We are not active participants in such a process, but are passive observers at best and victims at worst.

Cosmologist and quantum physicist Menas C. Kafatos, of Chapman University, is the co-author of The Conscious Universe: Parts and Wholes in Physical Reality.[53] Like Stapp, he is concerned with the practical importance of consciousness in daily life, what our future will look like, and whether we shall have a future that can support life as we know it. He writes:

Are these issues yet another set of intellectual arguments that scientists, philosophers and academics make? They are very relevant to your life and your healthy living: We seem to be bound by our minds, often giving us no peace. Yet, if what we view as reality is really the product of the mind, then we can approach our mind as a tool, as a friendly tool, get it on “our side,” so to speak ... [for] healthy living ... what we should pass on to the next generations. [54]

Your Spouse as a Differential Equation

Stapp’s concern that physicalistic science defines us as mechanical robots is a grave issue. If we peel back the layers of physicalistic logic behind this view, what do we find? We come face-to-face with serious illogic, described by philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper in his Compton Lecture in 1965.[55] Popper observed that, according to physicalistic determinism, mental states are the result of

... a certain physical structure of the holder — perhaps of his brain. Accordingly, we are deceiving ourselves whenever we believe that there are such things as arguments or reasons which make us accept determinism. Purely physical conditions including our physical environment make us say or accept whatever we say or accept. [56]

Popper called the physicalistic narrative “promissory materialism” — the notion that one day, not so very long from now, we’ll be able to give a completely physical account of consciousness. Popper predicted that, lured by periodic advances in brain science, “[W]e shall be talking less and less about experiences, perceptions, thoughts, beliefs, purposes and aims; and more and more about brain processes ....”[57] His prediction has come to pass.

Nobel laureate and neurophysiologist Sir John Eccles agreed with Popper. He excoriated the physicalist narrative, saying:

[P]romissory materialism [is] a superstition without a rational foundation. The more we discover about the brain, the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena, and the more wonderful do both the brain events and the mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists ... who confuse their religion with their science. It has all the features of a messianic prophecy.... [58]

Because physicalists maintain that no one is immune from physical laws, the implication is that everyone is a mechanical robot, including, inevitably, physicalists themselves. As Eccles observed, this leads to “an effective reductio ad absurdum.”[59] Why? Consider philosopher Dennett’s above observation that free will is an illusion. In asserting such, he presumably believes he was using his own free will to arrive at the conclusion that free will does not exist. But physicalists never acknowledge this pretzel-like aspect of their “logic.” Determined, robotic behavior is for others. The robotic strictures of physicalism do not apply to themselves. Thus they behave as if their conclusions are freely arrived at, and should be taken seriously. They must exempt themselves from their physicalistic theory, for if they did not they would have no claim to truth, no compelling “arguments or reasons,” as Popper noted. They cannot acknowledge that, if physicalism is valid, they arrived at their conclusions not as a result of freely considered data, but because their atoms, molecules and brain made them do so. They are thus hoisted by their own petard.

This ludicrous situation was parodied by astrophysicist Sir Arthur Eddington in his 1927 Gifford Lecture:

The materialist who is convinced that all phenomena arise from electrons and quanta and the like controlled by mathematical formulae, must presumably hold the belief that his wife is a rather elaborate differential equation, but he is probably tactful enough not to obtrude this opinion into domestic life. [60]

Futurist Willis Harman identified the hypocrisy of the physicalist position:

Science for three and a half centuries has been built on the premise that consciousness as a causal factor does not have to be included.... [But] nobody has ever lived life on the basis of such a contrary premise. Nobody has ever said, “I’m going to live my life as though my consciousness — my mind — weren’t capable of making decisions, making choices, taking action....” [61]


The evidence favoring a view of consciousness that transcends physicalism is enormous and is too vast to be described here. Several excellent summaries have recently appeared, such as Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence[62] ; Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century[63] ; and, as mentioned, Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality.[64]

All told, the evidence from more than a century of consciousness research shows that consciousness can do things brains cannot do. Thousands of studies show that humans can psychically insert information into the environment nonlocally, and also psychically acquire information from the environment nonlocally.

What does “nonlocal” imply? Nonlocality is a concept that physicists apply to a class of events whose description relates to the speed of light.[65] As physicist Nick Herbert explains, “A non-local connection links up one location with another without crossing space, without decay, and without delay.” These connections have three identifying characteristics, says Herbert. They are unmediated (no connecting signal is involved), unmitigated (the strength of the correlations do not fade with increasing distance), and immediate (they are instantaneous). [66]

Nonlocality is subdivided by many physicists into three types. Type I is spatial nonlocality; type II is temporal nonlocality; and type III nonlocality is both spatial and temporal. [67]

But physics does not own nonlocality, and physicists do not have a monopoly on nonlocal events and the language that describes them. People were routinely having nonlocal experiences millennia before quantum physics was invented in the twentieth century, and we are not obligated to cede nonlocality to scientists who have chosen to nuance the term differently.

There are compelling scientific, historic, and experiential reasons for believing that consciousness behaves nonlocally in space and time — that it is spatially unconfinable to brains and bodies, and that it is temporally unconfinable to the present. The evidence suggests that space and time are simply not applicable to certain operations of consciousness.[68][69] This evidence overwhelmingly suggests that consciousness is both trans-spatial and trans-temporal, that it is not in space and time. [70][71]

Empirical evidence shows that brains are separate, but minds are not. In the domain of consciousness, separation is not fundamental. The degree of spatial separation of individual minds, the distance that is involved, is not important; and the connections are instantaneous or immediate, whether the humans involved are an inch apart, or presumably when they are at opposite ends of the universe.

Many individuals accept the evidence that minds might operate at a distance, but they rebel at the possibility that minds might function outside the present. Yet scores of experiments indicate that human consciousness can operate nonlocally not only in space but also in time. Temporal nonlocality of consciousness has been solidly demonstrated. In these studies, intentions appear to influence certain types of events in the past, even though they presumably already have happened.[72][73] In addition, individuals also appear capable of acquiring accurate information from the future before it has occurred, especially if this information is of an unpleasant or traumatic nature.[74][75][76][77][78]

A nonlocal picture of consciousness has emerged from these studies, in which separation of minds is not fundamental, whether in space or time. A consciousness that is nonlocal with respect to space is infinite and omnipresent. A consciousness that is nonlocal with respect to time is eternal and immortal. And if individual consciousnesses are boundless and boundaryless, at some level they must come together to form a whole — a Universal or One Mind. When we therefore describe consciousness as eternal, infinite, and one, we are not speaking symbolically or poetically. We are invoking empirical science, in addition to human experience.

Several top scientists have stipulated that these views are fully compatible with emerging concepts within contemporary physics. For example, George Wald, a Nobel laureate in biology, stated, “I do not need spiritual enlightenment to know that I am one with the universe. That is just good physics.”[79] And the eminent physicist O. Costa de Beauregard observed, “Today’s physics allows for the existence of ‘paranormal’ phenomena of telepathy, precognition, and psychokinesis....The whole concept of ‘nonlocality’ in contemporary physics requires this possibility. [80] Far from being ‘irrational,’ the paranormal is postulated by today’s physics [emphasis in original]. [81]

Nonlocal consciousness is as necessary a concept as nonlocal subatomic particles, because nonlocal manifestations occur in the macroscopic, human domain, just as remote correlations between particles occur in the invisible subatomic domain. Moreover, these distant human-level connections appear to demonstrate the three essential characteristics of nonlocal subatomic events mentioned above: they appear to be unmediated, unmitigated, and immediate. This does not mean, however, that subatomic nonlocality necessarily explains or underlies the nonlocality of consciousness, despite the widespread temptation to assign a “quantum” explanation to the nonlocal experiences of humans. Caution is required. There is no conclusive evidence that quantum nonlocality causes nonlocal human experiences. Indeed, we may be dealing only with correspondences in terminology.

Many individuals may be surprised to discover the depth of this empirical evidence. There are at least six areas in consciousness research that resoundingly demonstrate the nonlocal, beyond-the-brain actions of consciousness. Experiments in these areas have been replicated repeatedly in labs around the world, each area giving odds against chance of around a billion to one, or combined odds against chance of 1054 to one, a truly astronomical number. These areas of research are remote viewing, random number generator influence, Ganzfeld, the Global Consciousness Project, presentiment, and precognition.[82][83][84][85]

This evidence is not a cosmetic re-working of current materialistic/physicalistic views, but is a radical departure or paradigm shift in current thinking. Consciousness researcher Kelly summarizes what is at stake:

[This emerging world picture] is not just the same old physicalistic world with an altered expression, but a world whose constitution is fundamentally different in ways that matter to us human beings. [This] vision ... provides an antidote to the prevailing postmodern disenchantment of the world and demeaning of human possibilities. It not only more accurately and fully describes our human condition but engenders hope and encourages human flourishing. It provides reasons for us to believe that freedom is real, that our human choices matter, and that we have barely scratched the surface of our human potentials. It also addresses the urgent need for a greater sense of worldwide community and interdependence, a sustainable ethos, by demonstrating that under the surface we and the world are much more extensively interconnected than previously realized. We strongly suspect that our individual and collective fates in these exceptionally dangerous and difficult times — indeed, the fate of our precious planet and all of its passengers — may ultimately hinge upon wider recognition and more effective utilization of the higher states of being that are potentially available to us but largely ignored or even actively suppressed by our post-modern civilization with its strange combination of self-aggrandizing individualism and fundamentalist tribalisms (emphasis in original). [86]


One of the main obstacles to the penetration of this evidence into mainstream science is the lack of a generally accepted theory as to how so-called paranormal phenomena could be true. But if this is a weakness for consciousness research, it is equally problematic for mind-equals-brain physicalism, which is completely bereft of any successful explanatory theory of consciousness, as mentioned.

The basic conundrum is not how a particular so-called paranormal event — telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis, or the survival of bodily death — could be valid, but how we can consciously be aware of ordinary experiences. In other words, the primary mystery is the very existence of consciousness. We breezily ignore the role of consciousness in the mundane events of our lives — how we decide what to have for dinner, say, and how we choose to raise a fork of spaghetti while opening our mouth at the same time and swallowing soon thereafter; and how we can experience the redness of the sauce, the taste of the garlic, the satisfaction of a lovely presentation, the bouquet of the wine, and admiration for the chef — feats beyond the ability of the most sophisticated robot. Although physicalists offer a flurry of explanations in sensorimotor terms for how these accomplishments happen, their explanations are empty of the crucial role of consciousness in all such sequences.

Any experience in which consciousness is involved is mysterious, whether deciphering the Lorenz equation or deciding to pick our nose. Commonplace events are as enigmatic as any of the so-called paranormal pyrotechnics that provoke incredulity among physicalists. There are not two categories of consciousness-related phenomena, normal and paranormal. They are all “para”— or normal, as the case may be. If we were sufficiently awake, we might realize that the lifting of a finger or the experience of love is as astonishing as the survival of bodily death. When physicalists bridle at the extraordinary and ignore the commonplace, in biblical imagery they are “straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.” [87]

Voltaire — no friend of spirituality — realized this. He observed, “It is not more surprising to be born twice than once.”[88] He understood that the marvel is life and consciousness themselves, not how many turns they make on the wheel of life.

Double Dazzlement

“To live is so startling it leaves little time for anything else,” exulted Emily Dickinson.[89] And physician-researcher Lewis Thomas observed, “Statistically, the probability of any one of us being here is so small that you’d think the mere fact of existing would keep us in a contented dazzlement of surprise.”[90] Add to this the fact that we are not only here but conscious as well, and you’d think we might experience a state of double dazzlement. But no; for most people, most of the time, consciousness is so ordinary and boring it largely escapes notice: the height of cosmic ingratitude.

Awakening us to conscious awareness of the ordinary is the calling of every great poet and artist. This is the point of Tennyson’s humble “Flower in the Crannied Wall,” of which he said: “... if I could understand/What you are, root and all, and all in all,/I should know what God and man is.”[91] And as George Eliot wrote in Middlemarch, “If we had a keen vision of all that is ordinary in human life, it would be like hearing the grass grow or the squirrel’s heart beat, and we should die of that roar which is the other side of silence.” But Eliot felt compelled to add, “As it is, the quickest of us walk about well wadded with stupidity.... We do not expect people to be deeply moved by what is not unusual.” [92]

If our well-waddedness prevents our recognition of the extraordinariness of the ordinary, how do we strip away the cognitive padding that insulates us from greater awareness? This is a crucial question because, typically, dedicated, well-wadded physicalists scrupulously avoid evidence that contradicts their assumptions. As one such individual commented, “This is the sort of thing I would not believe, even if it really happened.”[93] Many consciousness researchers have written wisely about how to encourage openness to the evidence for a nonphysicalist view, such as Paul Marshall in his recent essay “Why We Are Conscious of So Little” in the above-mentioned Beyond Physicalism.[94] In fact, the overall thrust of all three volumes mentioned above is to nudge us into fuller awareness through an enlarged conceptual framework, as well as experiences and practices, that transcend a physicalistic approach.

Recognition of the incompleteness of science and the need for novel views is especially encouraged by the blank spots on our maps of the universe that have been recently recognized. As consciousness researchers Edward Kelly and David E. Presti state:

[D]espite all of our genuine scientific knowledge and technical expertise, patiently accumulated over centuries of systematic and disciplined effort, we ... apparently overlooked until the past decade or so something like 95% of the physical content of the universe — its so-called dark matter and energy. This chastening discovery should certainly encourage humility, and perhaps a sense of excitement as well, regarding what may remain to be discovered about the human mind! [95]

Because physicalists assume, as stated, that extraordinary, anomalous consciousness-related phenomena cannot exist in principle, they generally refuse to examine the evidence for these happenings. In so doing, they may have duplicated the failure of physicists to notice[95]percent of the matter and energy in the universe, only this time the overlooked item is the fundamental nature of consciousness and its manifestations.

Suppose I said to you, “I would like to be your internal medicine physician, but you should know that I understand nothing about[95]percent of the organs in your body.” You would probably turn away immediately, disgusted by my audacity, as you should. Should we not react with equal caution to physicalists who want to be our interpreters of reality, when they are in the dark regarding[95]percent of the physical content of the universe? With such massive lacunae regarding physical issues, why trust them where consciousness is concerned?

Why do entities such as consciousness remain invisible to physicalists? As astrophysicist David Darling says, “If science searches the universe — as it does — for certain kinds of truth, then these are inevitably the only ones it will find. Everything else will slip through the net.”[96] The net used by consciousness researchers is made of finer mesh than the net employed by physicalists; it captures facts and phenomena physicalists never notice.

There is no room for smugness, however, because this failing — failure to notice — affects everyone in one way or another, as novelist Stephen King humorously points out:

[J]umbo shrimp, everybody’s oxymoron. They’re the big shrimp that nobody ate in restaurants until 1955 or 1960 because, until then, nobody thought of going shrimping after dark. They were there all the time, living their prosaic shrimp lives, but nobody caught them. So when they finally caught them it was, “Hello! Look at this. This is something entirely new.” And if the shrimp could talk they’d say, “[W]e’re not new. We’ve been around for a couple of thousand years. You were just too dumb to look for us.” [97]

Mind at Large

A recurring theme of modern consciousness research is that there is a larger, more extensive consciousness beyond our individual mind. This view can be traced back for at least three millennia, appearing in various forms in Eastern traditions. But it is a mistake to consign this concept to archaic cultures. A proponent of this view was British classicist and psychical researcher F. W. H. Myers (1843-1901), who wrote:

There exists a more comprehensive consciousness, a profounder faculty, which for the most part remains potential only...but from which the consciousness and the faculty of earth-life are mere selections.... [N]o Self of which we can here have cognizance is in reality more than a fragment of a larger Self — revealed in a fashion at once shifting and limited through an organism not so framed as to afford it full manifestation. [98]

Many prominent architects of 20th-century science have affirmed a unified, collective aspect of consciousness, in which all individual minds are connected as a single whole. As Nobel Prize-winning physicist Erwin Schrödinger put it, “To divide or multiply consciousness is something meaningless. In all the world, there is no kind of framework within which we can find consciousness in the plural; this is simply something we construct because of the spatio-temporal plurality of individuals, but it is a false construction.... The category of number, of whole and of parts are then simply not applicable to it.”[99] And, “The overall number of minds is just one.... In truth there is only one mind.”[100] Astrophysicist Sir Arthur Eddington agreed: “The idea of a universal Mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory; at least it is in harmony with it.”[101] And as the eminent physicist David Bohm observed, “Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This is a virtual certainty ... and if we don’t see this it’s because we are blinding ourselves to it.”[102] These images are congruent with psychiatrist Carl G. Jung’s concept of the collective unconscious, Emerson’s Over-Soul, and Aldous Huxley’s Mind at Large — a Universal or One Mind, a plenum that fuels our experience as individual sentient, conscious creatures. As philosopher Michael Grosso has stated, “Our individual minds are surface growths that appear separate and distinct but whose roots lie in a deeper psychic underground; there we are mutually entangled and part of a more extended mental system.” [103]

A perennial complaint toward this view is the horror of being swallowed up and homogenized in a cosmic blob of undifferentiated consciousness, in which individuality disappears. This concern is emphatically contradicted by those who claim to have experienced the larger connections. Psychologist William James emphasized that a sense of individuality is preserved, not extinguished, in the Universal or One Mind:

We with our lives are like islands in the sea, or like trees in the forest. The maple and the pine may whisper to each other with their leaves ... [but] the trees also commingle their roots in the darkness underground, and the islands also hang together through the ocean’s bottom. Just so there is a continuum of cosmic consciousness, against which our individuality builds but accidental fences, and into which our several minds plunge as into a mother-sea or reservoir. Our “normal” consciousness is circumscribed for adaptation to our external earthly environment, but the fence is weak in spots, and fitful influences from beyond leak in, showing the otherwise unverifiable common connection. [104]

The Brain As Filter

The brain does not generate thought...any more than the wire generates electric current. [105]

— Paul Brunton

An assertion related to mind-at-large is that the brain operates not as a generator or producer of mind or consciousness, but as a filter that receives, limits, transforms, and transmits information that arises external to the brain. As historian of religion Huston Smith has said, “The brain breathes mind like the lungs breathe air.”[106] This reducing function is vital; otherwise we would likely be overwhelmed by informational input, which would compromise our ability to get on successfully in the world. An impressive array of historical opinion has accumulated in favor of the brain-as-filter view, including Aldous Huxley, F. W. H. Myers, William James, Henri Bergson, F. C. S. Schiller, and others.

We pay a price for this stepped-down version of consciousness, however. An experience of our essential nature is obscured. As novelist Huxley put it, “[E]ach one of us is potentially Mind at Large. But in so far as we are animals, our business at all costs is to survive. To make biological survival possible, Mind at Large has to be funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will help us to stay alive on the surface of this particular planet”[107] As astrophysicist Darling has said, we are conscious not because of the brain, but in spite of it. [108]

Philosopher Michael Grosso has summarized the key features of this view:

The brain transmits — it does not produce — consciousness.... [M]ind is not a property of the brain but a user of the brain.... Consciousness preexists the brain; it does not emerge from the brain. There is a transpersonal mind, i.e., a mind at large, a cosmic consciousness, James’s “mother-sea” of consciousness.... [There is an] ever-fluctuating threshold that separates subliminal from supraliminal mental life.” [109]

...A crude analysis with radio and radio waves: the radio does not produce the radio waves; it detects, transmits, and filters them. If your radio breaks down, it doesn’t follow that the sounds you’re listening to have ceased to exist. They just cease to be detectable. An analogy is possible between this and the mind-brain relationship.” [110]

The permeability of our mental filter is not fixed. Filters can become clogged, but they can also become more porous, so that the “measly trickle” that emerges is increased. As a consequence of this “ever-fluctuating threshold,” experiences such as telepathy, clairvoyance and precognition may occur. Throughout human history, techniques have been developed to alter this threshold in favor of expanded awareness, as seen in various mystical, religious, spiritual, and native traditions.


The “cash value” of the beyond-the-brain models of mind-matter interaction can be seen in the domain of creativity. Physicalistic models of brain function fail to explain, for example, the mind-boggling feats of savants, who are commonly mentally impaired, or the genius of prodigies such as the great mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan. But if all individual minds are connected with one another and to a plenum of consciousness that transcends ordinary awareness, and if the threshold between expanded and contracted awareness is continually shifting, individuals might have occasional access to all conceivable knowledge, past, present, and future. This could account for what F. W. H. Myers called a “subliminal uprush” of genius-level creativity and understanding. [112]

These “uprushes” can be spectacular when they occur in children. Developmental psychologist Joseph Chilton Pearce reports a striking example. When he was in his early thirties, teaching humanities in a college, he was engrossed in theology and the psychology of Carl Jung. Pearce describes himself as “obsessed” by the nature of the God-human relationship, and his reading on the subject was extensive. One morning as he was preparing for an early class, his five-year-old son came into his room, sat down on the edge of the bed, and launched into a twenty-minute discourse on the nature of God and man. Pearce was astonished. He states:

He spoke in perfect, publishable sentences, without pause or haste, and in a flat monotone. He used complex theological terminology and told me, it seemed, everything there was to know. As I listened, astonished, the hair rose on my neck; I felt goose bumps, and, finally, tears streamed down my face. I was in the midst of the uncanny, the inexplicable. My son’s ride to kindergarten arrived, horn blowing, and he got up and left. I was unnerved and arrived late to my class. What I had heard was awesome, but too vast and far beyond any concept I had had to that point. The gap was so great I could remember almost no details and little of the broad panorama he had presented.... He wasn’t picking up his materials from me. I hadn’t acquired anything like what he described and would, in fact, be in my mid-fifties and involved in meditation before I did.... My son had no recollection of the event. [113]

Many consciousness researchers recognize that there are deeper ways of knowing than the rational, logical, analytical methods usually attributed to “doing science.” These deeper ways do not deny the physical senses and reason, but they include and transcend them. We get glimpses of this process from exemplars who have employed them. An example is Thomas Edison, America’s great inventor, who stated:

People say I have created things. I have never created anything. I get impressions from the Universe at large and work them out, but I am only a plate on a record or a receiving apparatus — what you will. Thoughts are really impressions that we get from outside. [114]

Logic, reason, and intellectual analysis take a back seat in this unfolding. As Eugene Wigner, Nobel laureate in physics, put it, “The discovery of the laws of nature requires first and foremost intuition, conceiving of a picture and a great many subconscious processes. The ... confirmation of these laws is another matter.... [L]ogic comes after intuition.”[115] Baron Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, the renowned physicist who was a student of the legendary physicist Werner Heisenberg, thought similarly about creativity and discovery in science:

A great scientific discovery ... is often described as an inspiration or a special gift of grace which comes to the researcher when and as it pleases, like the answer from “another authority” and then almost without effort on his part. It is never viewed as the inevitable result of his research effort. Here we find the often disturbing and happy experience: “It is not I; I have not done this.” Still, in a certain way it is I — yet not the ego ... but ... a more comprehensive self. [116]

Psychiatrist Carl G. Jung conceived of a timeless reservoir of information not unlike Edison’s image of “impressions from the Universe at large”:

As a matter of fact we have actually known everything all along; for all these things are always there, only we are not there for them. The possibility of the deepest insight existed at all times, but we were always too far away from it.... Originally we were all born out of a world of wholeness and in the first years of life are still completely contained in it. There we have all knowledge without knowing it. Later we lose it, and call it progress when we remember it again. [117]

The unfolding of this knowledge is revelatory. It cannot be manipulated. As Aldous Huxley said,

Understanding is not inherited, nor can it be laboriously acquired. It is something which, when circumstances are favorable, comes to us, so to say, of its own accord. All of us are knowers, all the time; it is only occasionally and in spite of ourselves that we directly understand the mystery of given reality. [118]

Still, we are not helpless. Although the knowledge cannot be commanded, it can be invited. We can set the stage for the revelation. This seeming paradox has been emphasized repeatedly in the world’s great spiritual traditions. As historian of religion Huston Smith, mentioned above, says, from the Christian tradition, “Everything is a gift, but nothing is free.”[119] Vivekananda, from the Hindu perspective, agreed: “The wind of God’s grace is always blowing, but you must raise your sail.”[120] The message from Islam is the same. As the Sufi mystic Bastami said, “The knowledge of God cannot be attained by seeking, but only those who seek it find it.” [121]


Open minds toward the evidence we have examined can be hard to come by. Closed minds, of course, are nothing new — not just toward consciousness-related phenomena, but toward new developments in the physical sciences as well.[122] During the early twentieth century, plate tectonics and continental drift were hotly debated in the field of geophysics. Looking back on this debate, the eminent geophysicist Sir Edward Bullard observed, in words that apply to the current arguments about consciousness-related phenomena,

There is always a strong inclination for a body of professionals to oppose an unorthodox view. Such a group has a considerable investment in orthodoxy: they have learned to interpret a large body of data in terms of the old view, and they have prepared lectures and perhaps written books with the old background. To think the whole subject through again when one is no longer young is not easy and involves admitting a partially misspent youth. . . . Clearly it is more prudent to keep quiet, to be a moderate defender of orthodoxy, or to maintain that all is doubtful, sit on the fence, and wait in statesmanlike ambiguity for more data.... [123]

Max Planck, the founder of quantum mechanics, confronted this problem. He famously said, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”[124] Or as Planck’s view is often paraphrased, “Science changes funeral by funeral.”

Planck’s observation is especially applicable to medicine, my field. I have many excellent colleagues who recoil from any view that contradicts physicalism. This is not surprising. We physicians are continually assured, from pre-med days forward, that physicalism is valid. For instance, in a cameo of the materialistic outlook, the eminent neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, of the University of Southern California, confidently predicted in 1999, the final year of “The Decade of the Brain,” as designated by US President George H. W. Bush:

In an effort that continues to gain momentum, virtually all the functions studied in traditional psychology — perception, learning, and memory — are being understood in terms of their brain underpinnings. The mystery behind many of these functions are being solved, one by one, and it is now apparent that even consciousness, the towering problem in the field, is likely to be elucidated before too long. [125]

And as philosopher Stan V. McDaniel, of Sonoma State University, exulted, the conclusion drawn is that “the mind, self, and consciousness are now entirely within the purview of neuroscience. It follows that all other theories of the mind...are consigned to the trash heap.” [126]

The trash heap is actually a mild sentence for dissenting views; burning is sometimes recommended by dedicated physicalists. When Cambridge biologist Rupert Sheldrake hypothesized that the form and function of living and nonliving entities are influenced by nonmaterial fields, and provided extensive evidence for such in his 1981 book A New Science of Life, he was denounced for his apostasy by Sir John Maddox, the esteemed editor of Nature. Maddox condemned Sheldrake’s tome as “a book for burning.”[127][128] It was a punishment that Galileo, who feared burning, and Giordano Bruno, who experienced it, would have understood.

Consciousness as Fundamental

The centrality of consciousness in the elaboration of what we call reality is not a radical idea, but one that has a long and storied history since humans began to record such things. This view did not cease to exist with the advent of modern science; its proponents have simply been ignored.[129] Examples include Nobel physicist Erwin Schrödinger:

Although I think that life may be the result of an accident, I do not think that of consciousness. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else[130] .... If we have to decide to have only one sphere, it has got to be the psychic one, since that exists anyway.[131]

Max Planck, the founder of quantum mechanics:

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. [132]

Near the end of his life, Planck further said,

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. [133]

Psychiatrist Carl G. Jung:

It is almost an absurd prejudice to suppose that existence can only be physical. As a matter of fact, the only form of existence of which we have immediate knowledge is psychic. We might as well say, on the contrary, that physical existence is a mere inference, since we know of matter only in so far as we perceive psychic images mediated by the senses. [134]

Astrophysicist Sir Arthur Eddington: “In comparing the certainty of things spiritual and things temporal, let us not forget this: Mind is the first and most direct thing in experience; all else is remote inference.”[135] Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of England: “In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it.”[136] And David Chalmers, cognitive scientist and philosopher at the Australian National University and at New York University: “Consciousness doesn’t dangle outside the physical world as some kind of extra, it’s there right at its heart.” [137]

Physicians And Consciousness

From the foregoing, it may seem as if the defenders of a beyond-the-brain view of consciousness are mainly physicists, consciousness researchers, and philosophers, but I am pleased to report that many physicians are also waking up to an expanded view of the nature of consciousness. I could cite many examples, but one shall suffice — the late physician Lewis Thomas (1913-1993), already mentioned. Thomas was dean of New York University Medical School and Yale School of Medicine and, later, director of research and president of the Sloan Kettering Institute in New York, now Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Thomas was a no-nonsense physician and bioscientist. He also was a gifted poet and graceful essayist. Among the things he questioned was the destiny of consciousness following bodily death. In his 1974 award-winning book of essays, The Lives of a Cell, he wrote:

There is still that permanent vanishing of consciousness to be accounted for. Are we to be stuck forever with this problem? Where on Earth does it go? Is it simply stopped dead in its tracks, lost in humans, wasted? Considering the tendency of nature to find uses for complex and intricate mechanisms, this seems to me unnatural. I prefer to think of it somehow as separated off at the filaments of its attachment, and drawn like an easy breath back into the membrane of its origin, a fresh memory for a biophysical nervous system.... [138]

Thomas suggested that our separate brains might be undergoing a kind of functional “fusion,” uniting separate minds in a greater whole that resembles a collective view of consciousness or Mind at Large:

We pass thoughts around, from mind to mind, so compulsively and with such speed that the brains of mankind often appear, functionally, to be undergoing fusion.... Maybe the thoughts we generate today and flick around from mind to mind ... are the primitive precursors of more complicated, polymerized structures that will come later.... [139]

The Stuffing in the Keyhole

What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an Angel! in apprehension how like a god!

~ William Shakespeare, Hamlet

Novelist Arthur Koestler wrote, “[We are] Peeping Toms at the keyhole of eternity. But at least we can try to take the stuffing out of the keyhole, which blocks even our limited view.” [140]

The emerging view of conscious we have explored requires removing the stuffing from the keyhole. If we manage to do so, we shall experience something higher — a clearer glimpse of our consciousness, Mind at Large, the Universal or One Mind, the Absolute — not a complete view, for that is beyond our capacity, but a resplendent vision that is as intrinsic to our humanity as our breath and heartbeat. This magnificent view is CPR for the far side of human experience, a vigorous resuscitation of the fact that our consciousnesss is far more than we have recently taken it to be: eternal, infinite, and one.


Biographical note:

Larry Dossey, MD, is an internist and author of twelve books on the relationships between consciousness, spirituality, and healing, including Space, Time & Medicine; Reinventing Medicine; the New York Times bestseller Healing Words: The Power of Prayer and the Practice of Medicine; The Power of Premonitions; and One Mind: How Our Individual Mind Is Part of a Greater Consciousness and Why It Matters. His books have been translated into languages around the world. He is the former chief of staff of Medical City Dallas Hospital; the former co-chair of the Panel on Mind/Body Interventions, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health; and the executive editor of EXPLORE: The Journal of Science and Healing. He lives in northern New Mexico with his wife, Barbara, an award-winning author and nurse-educator. He lectures around the world.

[1] Jones RS. Physics as Metaphor. New York, NY: Plume; 1983: 1.

[2] Schwartz GE, Miller L, Moreira-Almeida A, Dossey L, Schlitz M, Sheldrake R, Tart C. Manifesto for a post-material science. Explore (NY): 2014; 10(5): 272-274. Available at: Accessed 7 April, 2015.

[3] Malraux A. Quoted in: Hirst D. On the spirituality of the 21st century, Malraux revisited. Researchgate.net. 30 January, 2009. Accessed 25 March, 2015.

[4] Havel V. Quoted in: Delia Popescu, Political Action in Václav Havel's Thought: The Responsibility of Resistance. Lanham, MD: Lexington/Rowman & Littlefield; 2012: 83.

[5] Havel V. Speech to Congress, February 21, 1990. In: Jackson J. Spielvogel. Western Civilization. Volume C: Since 1789. Eighth Edition. Boston, MA: Wadsworth; 2012: 953. Speech available at Everything2.com. Accessed March 24, 2012.

[6] New Oxford American Dictionary. Mac OS X, Version 10.7.5. Accessed 23 March, 2015.

[7] Lindley D. Response to Robert Lanza. 9 March, 2007. Accessed 15 March, 2015

[8] Dennett DC. Quoted in: Overbye D. Free will: Now you have it, now you don’t. New York Times online. January 2, 2007.

[9] Stollznow K. Quoted in: Will Stor, Postcards from the edge. Good Weekend Magazine, The Age (Melbourne newspaper)

[10] Dennett D. Consciousness Explained. Boston, MA: Back Bay Books; 1992: 406.

[11] Crick F. The Astonishing Hypothesis. New York: Simon & Schuster; 1994.

[12] Sagan S. The Dragons of Eden. New York: Random House; 1977:7.

[13] Hobson A. Quoted in: Steven Laureys and Giulio Tononi (eds.). The Neurology of Consciousness: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropathology. Salt Lake City, UT: Academic Press; 2008; xi.

[14] Weinberg S. The First Three Minutes. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1993: 154.

[15] Eddington AS. Science and the Unseen World. London: Quaker Books; 2007: 9.

[16] Midgley M. Thinking matter. New Scientist. 2009; 201 (2689): 16.

[17] Kelly EF. Quoted in: Kelly EF, Crabtree A, Marshall P (eds.). Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2015: viii.

[18] Eisenstein C. A state of belief is a state of being. Network Review. Winter 2013; 113: 3-6.

[19] Pinker S. How the Mind Works. New York, NY: W. W. Norton; 1997: 146.

[20] Hoffman D. Consciousness and the mind-body problem. Mind & Matter. 2008; 6(1): 87-121.

[21] Kauffman S. God enough. Interview of Stuart Kauffman by Steve Paulson. Salon.com. November 19, 2008. Accessed January 30, 2010.

[22] Sperry R. Quoted in: Brian D. Genius Talk: Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1995: 367.

[23] Wigner EP. Are We Machines? Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 1969; 113 (2): 95-101. Jstor.org. Accessed February 2, 2010.

[24] Herbert N. Quantum Reality. New York, NY: Anchor/Doubleday; 1987: 249.

[25] Dyson F. How we know. The New York Review of Books. March 10, 2011; LVIII (4): 8-12.

[26] Fodor J. The big idea: Can there be a science of mind? Times Literary Supplement. July 3, 1992: 5-7.

[27] Searle J. Journal of Consciousness Studies. 1995;2(1): Quotation on front cover.

[28] Penrose R. Quoted in: Giberson K. The man who fell to earth. Interview with Roger Penrose. Science & Spirit. March/April 2003; 34-41. Available at: uits.arizona.edu. Accessed 7 April, 2015.

[29] Bohr N. Quoted in Heisenberg W. Physics and Beyond. (A.J. Pomerans, trans.) New York: Harper and Row;1971:88-91.

[30] Penfield W. The Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1975: 79-81.

[31] Maddox J. The unexpected science to come. Scientific American. 1999;2 81(6):62-7.

[32] Darling D. Supposing something different: Reconciling science and the afterlife. OMNI. 1995; 17(9): 4.

[33] Darling D. Soul Search: A Scientist Explores the Afterlife. New York, NY: Villard; 1995: 155-166.

[34] Dennett D. Quoted by: Bierman DJ. The Physical Nature of Consciousness. Philadelphia, Pa: John Benjamins; 2001:269-292.

[35] Ayer AJ. What I saw when I was dead. In Paul Edwards (ed.). Immortality. Amherst, NY: Prometheus; 1997: 269-75.

[36] Blakemore C. Quoted in Paul Edwards (ed.). Immortality. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books; 1997: 275.

[37] Bondi H. Quoted in Paul Edwards (ed.). Immortality. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books; 1997: 275.

[38] Ayer AJ. Postscript to a postmortem. London, UK: The Spectator. October 15, 1988.

[39] Foges P. An atheist meets the masters of the universe. Roundtable: Opinions and analysis from Lapham’s Quarterly writers and editors. March 8, 2010. Accessed November 21, 2012.

[40] James W. The Will to Believe. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press;1979:19.

[41] James W. Quoted in: Griffin DR. Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration. Albany, NY: SUNY Press; 1997:29.

[42] Russell B, quoted in Paul Edwards (ed.), Immortality. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books; 1997:v.

[43] John Eccles , Daniel N. Robinson. The Wonder of being Human: Our Brain & Our Mind. Boston: Shambhala; 1984: 178.

[44] Jung CG. Memories, Dreams, Reflections. New York, NY: Random House; 1965:325.

[45] Jung CG. The Symbolic Life. Collected Works. R.F.C. Hull (trans.) Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1976; Vol. 13, paragraph. 68.

[46] Orwell G. Quoted in: Banville J. Good man, bad world. The New York Review. November 6, 2003; L(17): 62-65.

[47] Feynman R. Quoted in: Boslough J. The enigma of time. National Geographic. March 1990; 177](3): 109-132.

[48] Wittgenstein L. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Proposition 6.4311. Wikiquote.org. Accessed 21 April, 2015.

[49] Becker E. Quoted in: Grosso M. Experiencing the Next World Now. New York, NY: Paraview; 2004: 279.

[50] Kelly EF. Quoted in: Kelly EF, Crabtree A, Marshall P (eds.). Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2015: viii.

[51] Stapp HP. Quoted in: MacIsaac T. A physicist’s explanation of why the soul may exist. Theepochtimes.com. 24 June, 2014. Accessed 2 March, 2015.

[52] Stapp HP. Attention, intention, and will in quantum physics. Physics.lbl.gov. 14 May, 1999. Accessed 2 March, 2015.

[53] Kafatos M, Nadeau R. The Conscious Universe: Parts and Wholes in Physical Reality. New York, NY: Springer; 2000.

[54] Kafatos MC. The spookie mind. Huffingtonpost.com, 11 November, 2014. Accessed 11 March, 2015.

[55] Karl Popper. The information philosopher.com. Accessed 25 March, 2015.

[56] Popper K. Quoted in: Eccles J, Robinson DN. The Wonder of being Human: Our Brain & Our Mind. Boston: Shambhala; 1984: 38.

[57] Popper K. Quoted in: Eccles J, Robinson DN. The Wonder of Being Human. Boston, MA: Shambhala; 1985: 36.

[58] Eccles J, Robinson DN. The Wonder of Being Human. Boston, MA: Shambhala; 1985: 36.

[59] Eccles J, Robinson DN. The Wonder of being Human: Our Brain & Our Mind. Boston: Shambhala; 1984: 38.

[60] Eddington AS. The Nature of the Physical World. Gifford Lectures of 1927. Annotated edition. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 2014: 336.

[61] Willis Harman. Commentary. Brain/Mind Bulletin. 1995; 21(3):4.

[62] Cardeña E, Lynn SJ, Krippner S (eds.). Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2000.

[63] Kelly EF, Kelly EW, Crabtree A, Gauld A, Grosso M, Greyson B. Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; 2007

[64] Kelly EF, Crabtree A, Marshall P (eds.). Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2015.

[65] Nadeau R, Kafatos M. Over any distance in “no time”: Bell’s Theorem and the Aspect and Gisin Experiments. The Non-local Universe. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1999:65-82.

[66] Herbert N. Quantum Reality. Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday; 1987: 214.

[67] Kafatos M, Nadeau R. The Conscious Universe: Parts and Wholes in Physical Reality. New York, NY: Springer; 2000: 127-129.

[68] Radin D. Entangled Minds. New York, NY: Paraview/Simon & Schuster; 2006.

[69] Radin D. The Conscious Universe. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco; 1997.

[70] Clarke CJS. The nonlocality of mind. Journal of Consciousness Studies. 1995;2(3):231-40.

[71] Dossey L. Nonlocal mind: a (fairly) brief history of the term. Explore. 2015: 11(2): 89: 101.

[72] Olshansky B, Dossey L. Retroactive prayer: A preposterous hypothesis? British Medical Journal. December 20, 2003;327:1465-68.

[73] Braud W. Wellness implications of retroactive intentional influence: exploring an outrageous hypothesis. Alternative Therapies in Health & Medicine. 2000;6(1): 37-48.

[74] Mossbridge J, Tressoldi P, Utts J. Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. 2012; 3:390. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390.

[75] Dossey L. Why are scientists afraid of Daryl Bem? Explore (NY). 2011; 7(3): 27-137.

[76] Honorton C, Ferrari DC. “Future telling”: A meta-analysis of forced-choice precognition exeperiments, 1935-1987. Journal of Parapsychology. 1989;53:281-308.

[77] Tressoldi PE, Martinelli M, Semenzato L. Pupil dilation prediction of random events. F1000 Res. 2014; 2: 262.

[78] Tressoldi PE, Martinelli M, Semenzato L, Cappato S. Let Your Eyes Prediction prediction accuracy of pupillary responses to random alerting and neutral sounds. SAGE Open. 2011; 1(2): 1-7.

[79] Wald G. Life and mind in the universe. In: The Evolution of Consciousness. Kishore Gandhi (ed.) New York, NY: Free Press; 1983:19..

[80] Beauregard OC. The paranormal is not excluded from physics. Journal of Scientific Exploration. 1998;12(2):315-320.

[81] de Beauregard OC. Wavelike coherence and CPT invariance: Sesames of the paranormal. Journal of Scientific Exploration. 2002;16(4):651-54.

[82] Tressoldi PE. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: The case of nonlocal perception, a classical and Bayesian review of evidences. Frontiers of Quantitative Psychology and Measurement. 2011; 2: 117. doi10.3389/fpsyg,2011.00117

[83] Schwartz SA. Six protocols, neuroscience, and near death: An emerging paradigm incorporating nonlocal consciousness. Academia.edu. Accessed 28 February, 2015.

[84] Bem DJ, Tressoldi PE, Rabeyron T, Duggan M. Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events. Manuscript submitted for publication. 2014. Available at: here or here. Accessed 11 March, 2015.

[85] Mossbridge J, Tressoldi P and Utts J. Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. 2012; Volume 3, article 390. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390. Accessed 12 March, 2015.

[86] Kelly EF. Quoted in: Kelly EF, Crabtree A, Marshall P (eds.). Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2015: 542.

[87] Matthew 23:24, King James version. Biblehub.com. Accessed 29 March, 2015.

[88] Voltaire. La princesse de babylone. In Romans et Contes. Paris; Editions Garnier Frères; 1960: 366.

[89] Dickinson E. Brainyquote.com. Accessed 20 April, 2015.

[90] Thomas L. Lives of a Cell. New York, NY: Penguin;1974: 141.

[91] Tennyson AL. Flower in the crannied wall. Bartleby.com. Accessed 31 March, 2015.

[92] Eliot G. Schmoop.com. Accessed 25 March, 2015.

[93] Targ R, Puthoff H. Mind-Reach. Scientists Look at Psychic Ability. New York, NY: Delta; 1977:169.

[94] Marshall P. In: Kelly EF, Crabtree A, Marshall P (eds.). Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2015: 387-422.

[95] Kelly EF, Presti DE. Quoted in: Kelly EF, Crabtree A, Marshall P (eds.). Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2015: 123.

[96] David Darling. Soul Search. New York, NY: Villard; 198:158.

[97] King S. Quoted in: Naomi Epel. Writers Dreaming. New York, NY: Carol Southern Books/Crown; 1993: 139.

[98] Myers FWH. Quoted in: Kelly EF, Crabtree A, Marshall P (eds.). Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2015: xviii.

[99] Schrödinger E. My View of the World. Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press; 1983: 31-34

[100] Schrödinger E. What is Life? and Mind and Matter. London, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1969: 139, 145.

[101] Eddington A. The Nature of the Physical World. New York, NY: MacMillan; 1928:338.

[102] Bohm B. Quoted in: Renée Weber. Dialogues with Scientists and Sages. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1986: 41.

[103] Grosso M. Quoted in: Kelly EF, Crabtree A, Marshall P (eds.). Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2015: 83-84.

[104] James W. Quoted in: Kelly EF, Crabtree A, Marshall P (eds.). Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2015: 521-522.

[105] Paul Brunton. Quoted in: Network Newsletter (of the Scientific and Medical Network, UK). April 1987; 33: 18.

[106] Smith H. Forgotten Truth: The Primordial Tradition. New York, NY: Harper & Row; 1976: 63.

[107] Huxley A. The Doors of Perception. London, UK: Chatto and Windus; 1954. Reprint: London, UK: Granada Publishing; 1984: 19-20.

[108] Darling D. Soul Search. New York, NY: Villard; 1995: 154-166.

[109] Grosso M. Quoted in: Kelly EF, Crabtree A, Marshall P (eds.). Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2015: 84-85.

[110] Grosso M. Soulmaking. Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads; 1997: 85.

[111] Srinivasa Ramanujan. Wikipedia. Accessed 20 April, 2015.

[112] Myers FWH. Quoted in: Kelly EF, Crabtree A, Marshall P (eds.). Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2015: 26.

[113] Pearce JP, Evolution’s End. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco; 1992: 8-9.

[114] Edison TA. Quoted in: Baldwin N. Edison: Inventing the Century. NY: Hyperion; 1995:376.

[115] Wigner E. Quoted in: M. Greene, ed. Toward a unity of knowledge. Psychological Issues. 1969; 22: 45 .

[116] Von Weizsäcker CF. Introduction to Gopi Krishna, The Biological Basis of Religion and Genius. New York, NY: Harper and Row; 1972: 35-36.

[117] Jung CG. Quoted in: Charet FX. Spiritualism and the Foundations of C. G. Jung’s Psychology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press; 1993: 61.

[118] Huxley A. Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow. New York, NY: Signet; 1964: 32)

[119] Smith H. Forgotten Truth: The Primordial Tradition. New York, NY: Harper Colophon; 1976: 113.

[120] Vivekananda. Quoted in: Smith H. Forgotten Truth: The Primordial Tradition. New York, NY: Harper Colophon; 1976: 113-114.

[121] Bastami B. Quoted in: Smith H. Forgotten Truth: The Primordial Tradition. New York, NY: Harper Colophon; 1976: 114.

[122] Hellman H. Great Feuds in Science. New York, NY: John Wiley;1998.

[123] Bullard E. Quoted in: John A. Steward. Drifting Continents & Colliding Paradigms: Perspectives on the Geoscience Revolution Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press; 1990: 184. Original quotation in: Edward C. Bullard. The emergence of plate tectonics: A personal view. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. 1975; 3:5.

[124] Planck M. Scientific Autobiography. (F. Gaynor, trans.) London: Williams & Norgate; 1950:33-34.

[125] Damasio A. Quoted in: Edward E. Kelly et al. Irreducible Mind. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2007: xx.

[126] McDaniel SV. Book review. Journal of Scientific Exploration. 2012; 26(3): 657-661. The review is of Matthew Colborn’s book Pluralism and the Mind: Consciousness, Worldviews, and the Limits of Science. Charlottesville, VA: Imprint Academic; 2011.

[127] Sheldrake R. A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation. Los Angeles, CA: J. P. Tarcher, Inc.; 1981.

[128] Adams T. Rupert Sheldrake: the “heretic” at odds with scientific dogma. Theguardian.com. 4 February, 2012. Accessed 2 March, 2015.

[129] Wilber K. Quantum Questions: The Mystical Writings of the World’s Great Physicists. Boston: Shambhala; 1984.

[130] Erwin Schrödinger. Quoted in: Walter Moore. A Life of Erwin Schrödinger. Canto edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1994: 181.

[131] Schrodinger E. My View of the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1960: 62.

[132] Planck M. The Observer. London, UK; January 25, 1931.

[133] Planck M. Wikiquote. Accessed 15 April, 2015.

[134] Jung CG. Psychology and Religion: West and East. Volume 11 of The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Sir Herbert Read and Gerhard Adler (eds.); R.F.C. Hull (trans.) Second edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1975: 12.

[135] Eddington AS. Science and the Unseen World. London: Quaker Books; 2007: 7.

[136] Rees M. Quoted in: Bruce Rosenblum, Fred Kuttner. Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2006:193.

[137] Chalmers D. Quoted in: MacIsaac T. 8 scientists contemplate place of human consciousness in science. Theepochtimes.com. 20 August, 2014. Accessed 2 March, 2015.

[138] Thomas L. Lives of a Cell. New York, NY: Penguin; 1978: 52.

[139] Thomas L. Lives of a Cell. New York, NY: Penguin; 1978: 142.

[140] Koestler A. Janus: A Summing Up. New York, NY: Random House; 1978: 282.

Originally published in: Explore Vol. 11, Issue 1, p1–4 (PDF)

After your death you will be what you were before your birth. [1]
— Arthur Schopenhauer

Birthmarks are common, occurring in up to 80 percent of infants.[2] Many fade with time, while others persist. Parents in Western cultures often refer to them as angel kisses, stork bites, or other cute terms that are intended to diminish the concern of the affected child.

There is widespread gender bias about the origins of birthmarks. In many parts of the world, they are believed related to the thoughts and actions of the mother. They are called voglie in Italian, antojos in Spanish, and wiham in Arabic, all of which translate to "wishes," because of the assumption that birthmarks are caused by unsatisfied wishes of the mother during pregnancy. For example, if a pregnant woman does not satisfy a sudden wish or craving for strawberries, it is said that the infant may bear a strawberry birthmark; if she desires wine and does not satisfy the wish, a port-wine stain birthmark may result; if the desire for coffee is not satisfied, cafe au lait spots my result.[3] In Dutch, birthmarks are called moedervlekken, in Danish modermaerke and in German Muttermal (mother-spots) because it was thought that an infant inherited the marks solely from the mother.[2] In Iranian folklore, it is said that a birthmark appears when the pregnant mother touches a part of her body during a solar eclipse.2 Some beliefs hinge on "maternal impressions" — birthmarks and birth defects appearing when an expectant mother sees something strange or experiences profound emotional shock or fear.[3]

Children Who Remember Previous Lives

Birth and death are not two different states, but they are different aspects of the same state. There is as little reason to deplore the one as there is to be pleased over the other.[4]
— Mahatma Gandhi

The late Ian Stevenson (1918-2007), who was Carlson Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Division of Personality Studies at the Health Sciences Center, University of Virginia, investigated thousands of children who, about the age of two, begin making comments suggesting a previous life.[5] In many of these cases, birthmarks and physical deformities in the child correlated with events in the alleged former life. For instance, malformed fingers corresponded to the amputation of fingers from a sword in a remembered lifetime; a birthmark corresponded to the entry and exit wounds of bullets in the remembered personality; congenital constriction rings in the legs of an individual mirrored being bound by ropes in a previous existence; the congenital absence of the lower leg corresponded to an accidental amputation of the leg in the previous personality; various birthmarks corresponded to burns, knife wounds, and various other traumas occurring in the life of the remembered individual.

In addition to memories, birth defects, and birthmarks, Stevenson believed specific behaviors might be carried over from life to life. For example, he found that children often experience phobias consistent with the mode of death of the remembered personality. A child remembering a life that ended in drowning might be afraid of being immersed in water. One who recalls a life terminated by a shooting might demonstrate a phobia for guns and loud noises. If death involved an auto accident, the child might be phobic of cars, buses, and trucks. These phobias often begin before the child can speak, and there may be no obvious factor in the family that might explain them.

Philias also occur. These may take the form of a desire for particular foods not eaten in the subject's family or for clothes that are entirely different from whose worn by family members. For example, there might be craving for tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs the previous personality was known to use, although they are tabooed in the current family.

Some subjects show skills they have not been taught or have not witnessed, which the remembered personality was known to possess.

Experimental Birthmarks

If reincarnation is a useful biological idea it is certain that somewhere in the universe it will happen. [6]
— Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1993

Stevenson coined the term "experimental birthmark" to describe a custom found in several countries in Asia. In this practice, the body of a dying or recently deceased person is marked with a substance, most often soot, in the belief that if the individual is reborn the infant's body will bear a birthmark corresponding to the placement of the mark on the deceased — a death mark becoming a birthmark. The mark on the body serves as a kind of bar code confirming identity through time. Stevenson found that this custom was widespread in Asia, particularly in Thailand and Myanmar (Burma). In the 1990s, he reported 20 such cases.[5] [7]

Psychiatrist Jim B. Tucker, who now occupies Stevenson's position at the University of Virginia, and psychologist H. H. Jurgen Keil, of the University of Tasmania, have reopened this line of research. In 2013 they reported 18 cases of experimental birthmarks — 13 in northeastern Thailand and five in Myanmar.[8]

Two Cases

I started out really young, when I was four, five, six, writing poems, before I could play an instrument. I was writing about things when I was eight or 10 years old that I hadn't lived long enough to experience. That's why I also believe in reincarnation, that we were put here with ideas to pass around. [9]
— Willie Nelson

Let's take a look at examples from the seminal paper on experimental birthmarks by Tucker and Keil.

Five years after her maternal grandfather died at age 59, Ning (not her real name), a girl, was born with an unusual birthmark in Loei province in Thailand. The birthmark carried special significance in Ning's family. At the time of her grandfather's death, one of his daughters decided to mark his body about two hours after he had expired in order to determine if rebirth occurred. She scraped soot from the bottom of a rice pot with her index finger and made a black mark above the deceased man's right lateral ankle.

The daughter doing the marking, Ning's aunt, made a mental wish that her father would take the mark with him should he be reborn, as a sign he had been reincarnated. Following her father's death, Ning's mother, a sister of the woman who marked the body, dreamed more than ten times about him shortly after he died. In the first dream he told her that he wanted to live with her family again.

Ning's birthmark was a flat, hyperpigmented nevus on her outer right lower leg. It was in good agreement with the location of the mark her aunt made on her grandfather's body.

Had the grandfather reincarnated as Ning, or was the correspondence of the marks a coincidence? Gender crossovers at rebirth are considered common in cultures that believe in reincarnation. Sometimes the ostensible reincarnated individual will speak of a former life as the deceased person, but Ning said very little that could be construed as a previous existence. One possible link, however, was that she vigorously opposed her mother's interest in gambling; the grandfather had also criticized his daughter's gambling habit. Another behavior of interest was that Ning stood while urinating approximately half of the time. Other cases have been reported in which girls who urinate while standing up claim to remember previous lives as males.[18]

Another case reported by Tucker and Keil involves not one but two experimental birthmarks. Mya (not her real name), a girl, was born outside of Yangon, Myanmar, and raised by her maternal aunt and her husband. Her maternal grandmother had died of kidney disease at 68, nine years before Mya was born. About 2 hours after she died, her daughter, Mya's aunt, made two marks on her body with soot — one on the lateral surface of the left leg just proximal to the ankle, the other on the medial surface of the right leg on and distal to the ankle.

Before Mya's mother became pregnant with her, she dreamed three times that her mother said she wanted to come live with her. Mya's mother initially said no, but the grandmother became more insistent and her mother eventually said, "As you wish." She became pregnant one month later. When Mya was born, she had birthmarks corresponding to the two marks made by her aunt on her grandmother's body. She had no other birthmarks, and neither did her two brothers.

At about 18 months of age, she began speaking about a variety of personal idiosyncrasies, habits, and events suggesting her deceased grandmother. Among these was one habit of particular interest to her family. She would eat with one leg hiked up in her chair. She and her grandmother were the only two in the family to do that. This, and a variety of additional memories she could seemingly not have invented, as well as the two birthmarks, convinced the mother and other family members that Mya was the reincarnation of her grandmother.

Problems With Conventional Explanations

A little while, a moment of rest upon the wind, and another woman shall bear me.[10]
— Kahlil Gibran

Only 30 to 50 percent of birth defects can currently be explained by genetic abnormalities, teratogens such as thalidomide and alcohol, and infections such as rubella.[11] This leaves 50 to 70 percent in the "cause unknown" category. Moreover, geneticists can't tell us why one fetus and not another is affected, nor why a birth defect takes a particular form, nor why a birthmark occurs at a particular place. In contrast, reincarnation, if real, provides a reason why a particular defect or birthmark occurs in one individual and not another, where it occurs on the body, and the shape it takes.

Genes, in Stevenson's view, are being asked to explain far more than they are capable of. They provide instructions for the production of proteins, yet they give us almost no knowledge about how proteins and other metabolites become organized into cells and the complex organs that make up our bodies. These limitations are not widely admitted. As Stevenson says, "Some geneticists are not modest in assuring us that they will in due course supply all the information we need to understand embryology and morphology. This amounts to a promissory note with no immediate cash value, and in the meantime we are free to consider the possibility of other contributory factors,"[12] such as reincarnation.

What Difference Does It Make?

I died as a mineral and became a plant,

I died as a plant and rose to animal,

I died as an animal and I was Man.

Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?[13]

— Rumi, 13th century Persia

What difference would it make if reincarnation were accepted? The most important consequence, Stevenson believes, would be the recognition of the duality of mind and body. "We cannot imagine reincarnation without the corollary belief that minds are associated with bodies during our familiar life, but are also independent of bodies to the extent of being fully separable from them and surviving the death of their associated body [and at some later time becoming associated with another body]"[14]

In saying this, Stevenson declares himself a proponent of interactional dualism, an idea that has an ancient history. Two of its most lustrous recent proponents were William James, the father of American psychology, and the Nobel Prize-winning philosopher Henri Bergson. The main idea of interactional dualism is that the brain and consciousness interact, but are not the same. The brain processes sensory stimuli and affects the content of consciousness, but it does not "make" consciousness, contrary to assumption of most neuroscientists. How mind and brain actually interface with one another remains a mystery and "is part of the agenda for future research; but that is equally true of the claims confidently made by many neuroscientists who assert that minds are reducible to brain activity."[24]

If dualism is accepted as a requirement for reincarnation, where do minds exist while waiting to take on another terrestrial existence? "I believe that we are obliged to imagine a mental space that, necessarily, differs from the physical space with which we are ordinarily familiar," Stevenson states. "I think that introspection can show that our thoughts occupy a mental space distinguishable from physical space, even while we are alive....[This] mental space where discarnate personalities might exist ... has already been ... described in considerable detail by several philosophers familiar with the evidence of the phenomena now called paranormal." Stevenson believes that thoughts and mental images might abound in this space, and some might be reincarnated. These diathanatic ("carried through death") qualities might include cognitive information about the events of a previous life, a variety of likes and dislikes, and, in some cases, residues of physical injuries or other markings of the previous body. The intermediate vehicle carrying these qualities he designates as the psychophore, meaning "mind-carrying."[15]

The information that is carried over, however, does not come through in its original detail but is much attenuated. This is true not just of thoughts but of physical phenomena as well. Thus, "The baby's body shows marks or defects at the sites of these [previous] wounds, but not the wounds themselves (except for occasional minor bleeding or oozing of fluid)."[16] Birthmarks and birth defects are therefore not exact reproductions of bleeding wounds, but can be considered "mental scars" of such wounds affecting the previous body.

In Search of Mechanism

Don't grieve. Anything you lose comes round in another form.[13]
— Rumi, 13th century Persia

How might experimental birthmarks — a dab of soot on a corpse — be transferred from a deceased individual to a newborn?

The concept of maternal impressions or maternal suggestion is often offered as an explanation. It relies on the mother as intermediary: she sees the experimental birthmark, which makes an impression in her mind, and this is somehow transferred to the developing fetus. Some suggest that this process may be similar to that of hypnotic suggestion, in which highly hypnotizable subjects can develop blisters, stigmata, or other specific and localized skin reactions. Although these hypnotic phenomena are well known, the mechanism underlying them is obscure. As Tucker and Keil state, "As for experimental birthmarks, the question of how the suggestion of a birthmark in a mother's mind would be transmitted to the skin of the fetus remains unanswered, but so does the question of how a suggested injury is transmitted to the skin of a hypnotized subject." In other words, there is plenty of ignorance to go around; it isn't limited to the possibility of maternal impressions. For Tucker and Keil, maternal impressions are not inconceivable. They say, "While the psychosomatic mechanism for such a process remains unexplained, we now know, of course, that some substances can cross the placenta, and we have evidence that at least in a general way a mother's emotional state can affect the fetus."[17], [18], [19]

But even if maternal impressions are transferrable to a fetus, this could not explain all the 18 cases of experimental birthmarks reported by Tucker and Keil, because mothers actually saw the experimental birthmark in only five of the eighteen cases. The mother heard, or may have heard, of the markings in eight others, but in at least two of these they did not know the site of the markings. In at least five cases the mother did not even know the deceased had been marked.[8]

What are other possible explanations? Tucker and Keil suggest that experimental birthmarks may represent "a phenomenon of consciousness." They consider two types. In one, the prayers, wishes, or intentions of the mourning family might exert physical effects in the fetus, causing the development of a birthmark in the newborn that corresponds to the marking of the deceased. The ability of intentions to alter physiological processes in others has been demonstrated in many studies in both humans and nonhumans.[20], [21], [22] And, these authors note, there are "more than 800 experiments in the parapsychological literature suggesting that consciousness can affect random physical systems."[23] Even so, we are still groping for an explanation. Tucker and Keil: "Even these provide little basis for the idea that a prayer at a funeral could influence the fetal development of a child born months or years later, but they suggest the possibility should not be rejected out of hand."[23]

"The second consciousness-related possibility," say Tucker and Keil, "involves what the villagers believe: that there is a continuation of the consciousness of the deceased individual in the child born with the birthmark. While this possibility may be the most speculative, it should be noted that Stevenson collected more than 2500 cases of children who appear to remember previous lives5 and more than 200 cases of children with birthmarks that correspond to wounds or other marks on the body of the identified previous personality.[7] Taken in that context, the six cases in our series in which the child made statements related to the life of the deceased individual indicate that this explanation warrants consideration.... Whether these cases represent a psychosomatic phenomenon, a consciousness-mediated one, or some other process, they at least deserve more study."[23]

The Most Important Question

He had a thousand-year-old stare.[24]
— Louise Erdrich, The Antelope Wife

The question of the survival of bodily death deserves our sincerest consideration. As Stevenson observed, "It has been wisely said that the question of a life after death is the most important one that a scientist — or anyone — can ask."16 And to critics who tiresomely screech that this question should be ignored because we can never know the answer for sure, Stevenson said, "I believe it is better to learn what is probable about important matters than to be certain about trivial ones."[25]

For millennia, the primary evidence favoring the survival of bodily death, which involves the extension of consciousness in space and time, was anecdotal. In our era, however, the tools with which we have objectively explored this possibility are formidable. These techniques make it possible to buttress experience with experiment. As a result, several lines of evidence now reveal a dimension of consciousness that is nonlocal with respect to space and time, as I have described in One Mind: How Our Individual Mind Is Part of a Greater Consciousness and Why It Matters.[26] Several areas of consciousness research, including remote viewing, ganzfeld studies, precognition/presentiment, and psychokinesis, have yielded positive results in hundreds of experiments demonstrating odds against chance in each of these areas of more than a billion against one.[27]

To put it bluntly, we now know that minds can do things brains cannot do. Minds, these experiments tell us, are not bounded. They are not limited, confined, or localized to specific places in space such as brains and bodies, nor are they localized to specific moments in time such as the present. Minds behave as if they are spatially and temporally nonlocal, therefore infinite in space and time, because a limited nonlocality, we must always remind ourselves, is a contradiction in terms.

The image of consciousness that has arisen from these careful, copious, and replicated experiments is that nonlocal minds are temporally infinite, therefore eternal and immortal. While the evidence for nonlocal mind does not confirm or endorse any specific instance of reincarnation, it is cordial to the possibility because it demolishes the prohibitions that materialistic science has erected forbidding the survival of consciousness following physical death.

Humans throughout history have diligently sought to demonstrate reincarnation. One way, we've seen, is by marking a dying or deceased body with soot and observing whether the mark reappears on a subsequent newborn as a birthmark at the same location. If the "birthmarked" child begins to recall events in the "deathmarked" individual's life that could not be known through normal means, the significance of this sequence of events increases. Although inconclusive, I admire this approach; it is simple, ingenious, noninvasive, and about as low budget as can be imagined. This ancient, sooty method deserves our respect, because it points in the same direction as modern research: the indestructibility of consciousness through time.

Voltaire observed, "It is not more surprising to be born twice than once."[28] He realized that the marvel is consciousness itself, not how many turns it makes on the wheel of life.


[1] Schopenhauer A. Quoted in: Searchquotes.com. Accessed 2 April, 2014.

[2] Birthmarks. Babycenter.com. Accessed 4 April, 2014.

[3] Birthmark. Wikipedia. Accessed 1 April , 2014

[4] Gandhi M. Quoted in: Searchquotes.com. Accessed 8 April, 2014.

[5] Stevenson I. Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation (Revised Edition). Jefferson, NC: McFarland; 2001.

[6] Mullis K. Quoted in: Brainyquote.com. Accessed 2 April, 2014.

[7] Stevenson I. Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1997.

[8] Tucker JB, Keil HHJ. Experimental birthmarks: new cases of an Asian practice. Journal of Scientific Exploration. 2013; 27(2):269-282.

[9] Nelson W. Quoted in: Brainyquote.com. Accessed 2 April, 2014.

[10] Gibran K. Quoted in: Goodreads.com . Accessed 2 April 2014.

[11] Stevenson I. Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1997: 3.

[12] Stevenson I. Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1997: 180.

[13] Rumi. Quoted in: Goodreads.com. Accessed 2 April, 2014.

[14] Stevenson I. Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1997: 181.

[15] Stevenson I. Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1997: 181-3.

[16] Stevenson I. Reincarnation and Biology: A Contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects. Westport, CT: Praeger; 1997: 182.

[17] Tucker JB, Keil HHJ. Experimental birthmarks: new cases of an Asian practice. Journal of Scientific Exploration. 2013; 27(2):280.

[18] Glover V. Maternal stress or anxiety in pregnancy and emotional development of the child. British Journal of Psychiatry. 1997; 171: 105-106.

[19] Lou HC, Hansen D, Nordentoft M, Pryds O, Jensen F, Nim J, Hemmingsen R. Prenatal stressors of human life affect fetal brain development. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. 1994; 36: 826-32.

[20] Dossey L. Reinventing Medicine. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco; 1999: 37-84.

[21] Dossey L. Healing research: What we know and don't know. Explore (NY). 2008; 4(5): 341-352.

[22] Braud W, Schlitz M. A methodology for the objective study of transpersonal imagery. Journal of Scientific Exploration. 1989; 3(1), 43-63.

[23] Radin DI, Nelson RD. Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems. Foundations of Physics. 1989;19: 1499-1514.

[24] Erdrich L. Quoted in: Goodreads.com. Accessed 2 April, 2014.

[25] Stevenson I. Quoted in: Michael Schmicker, Best Evidence. New York, NY: Writers Club Press; 2000: 223

[26] Dossey L. One Mind: How Our Individual Mind Is Part of a Greater Consciousness and Why It Matters. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House; 2013.

[27] Schwartz SA. Crossing the threshold: nonlocal consciousness and the burden of proof. Explore (NY). 2013; 9 (2): 77-81.

[28] Voltaire. La princesse de babylone. In Romans et Contes. Paris; Editions Garnier Freres; 1960: 366.