Dr. Susan Blackmore is a well regarded scientist and skeptic of psi phenomenon, OOBs and the afterlife.  Apparently, she began her studies into the paranormal, and then concluded after many years of study and experimentation that she had found no evidence for the continuation of consciousness. 

I am enclosing a link to an article from her website which details why, several years ago, she gave up on studying the afterlife and paranormal events.  I think it is worth a read, because the reader gets the distinct feeling that she is truly sincere and not a skeptic for the sake of being "contrary." 

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:sC5g-uyu4LMJ:www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/Kurtz.htm+susan+blackmore+giving+up&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The fascinating part of this paper is how she describes that upon failing her well designed tests of the paranormal, those who believed in their "powers," refused to accept the results, and rationalized why they failed to show that they could do what they said they would.  Paradoxically, they called her (the investigator) "closed minded" for not accepting that they would be right.

I bring this paper up, and the questions it raises specifically with regard to Don's requests for more "verification" of afterlife experiences on the earth plane. 

While I  myself believe in the survival hypothesis of the soul after death, I must admit a certain admiration for the Susan Blackmores out there, who are trying to scientifically assess various claims and see if they can be reproduced or shown conclusively to be "real" or something that happened as a matter of pure chance.  Of course, there are many perspectives on this discussion, the least of which is agreeing on what is "real," and whether or not reproducible physical evidence can ever prove a spiritual phenomenon.

Matthew

I'm not able to get the link to come up while at work.

Nevertheless, the results of what she found shows that a person needs to find out through his (or her) own experience whether or not there are realms of existence beyond the physical universe, because scientific studies can miss the mark.

Even if a scientific study ends up being supportive of the existence of non-physical realms, the consideration of such evidence isn't the same as a person having his own experiences. I believe I have been very dicriminating about my experiences, even though there have been times when keen discrimination wasn't needed, because what I understood was so clear and certain.

Or to put it another way, there is no book or study that can duplicate what I have learned through my own experience. The best way to find out if chocalate tastes good is to try it.

Matthew-

Blakemore is a serious researcher who, at least to date, has failed to come up with verifiable evidence that the afterlife exists.

She may be right.  At least we know she isn't one of the afterlife kool aid drinkers that seem to populate the internet more and more these days.

I for one respect her, even if her findings don't comport with what so many people want to hear.

These days folks can find support for all sorts of wacky beliefs.  For example, if you don't believe in the holocaust, you can find all kinds of websites that will support that viewpoint. 

Or if you think 9/11 was really the result of an ingenious plot by the evil George Bush, you can just type in 9/11 Truthers on google, and you will find plenty of websites that will assure you that you are correct, elementary logic be damned.  Because logic doesn't count for much anymore.  The intellect has taken a back seat to the emotions.

Pick almost anything.  You think we really didn't land on the moon in 1969?  Not to worry, others have the same opinion.

In other words, common sense and logical reasoning have pretty much gone out the window.  And for fear of damaging Johnny's self-esteem, who's to say he (or she) is wrong? 

Kudos to Dr. Blackmore.  What we need is more folks with her bent of mind. Not to undermine beliefs, but to challenge them and to make people think with their heads as opposed to conclusions based on wish fulfillment.

Lord knows, we have enough lollipop heads as it is in the age of google.

R

I am familiar with Susan Blackmore and I agree that she has these findings and that she is the real deal. I used to think that perhaps she was simply blinded by science but now I think it helps keep the 'psi uncertainty principle" in tact in this "earthly situation".

this is the weblink I found her article on:
if others can't read it, let me know...

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:sC5g-uyu4LMJ:www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/Kurtz.htm+susan+blackmore+giving+up&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

When Susan Blackmore's body stops functioning and she finds that she still exists, should she trust her scientific conclusions, or should she trust her experience? If she trusts her scientific conclusions, somebody might have to do a retrievel.

Perhaps before a person tries to tell people that the afterlife doesn't exist, he or she should try to find out through his or her own experience.

Albert,

If you read the link, you'll see she made no firm conclusions, but states why she is giving up.  It is a fascinating read, and important.



M

Hi,

I think healthy open-minded scepticism is to be welcomed but, to express a personal opinion, I don't believe Susan Blackmore fits that description. Her brightly-coloured hair is a well-known sight to the British public as she tends to be the resident expert 'sceptic' wheeled out when paranormal phenomena is on the media agenda even though she no longer researches the paranormal.

Why do I believe she's not open-minded ? Partly because I have found she has used a rather 'spread your bets' kind of normalistic explanation to phenomena she can't really explain in a way I don't find scientific.She also dismissed the Scole experiments out of hand without properly investigating them (although if I had'nt followed up her article I would'nt have known that ). I believe that her negative results may be due in part to the 'experimenter' effect where the experimenter can unwittingly influence an experiment i.e if they expect negative results they get negative results. Bruce has discussed this effect in his books.

See also: http://www.victorzammit.com/articleskeptics/1lawyerrebutspsychologynde.html

Dean Radin devotes a chapter to scepticism in 'The Conscious Universe' where he talks about Susan Blackmore's scepticism.

As always its best to your information from a wide range of sources as possible and make your own mind up - others might feel she is the real deal.

Dave

I really liked the article, thanks for sharing.  I think this is just what we need more of; people who are truly striving to be open minded in their search for truth, rather than people trying to shore up their personal paradigms at the expense of truth.

I'll have to read the links when I'm at home.

When a person says they are being scientific I allow myself to be skeptical, because I've found that scientists can be biased, and as long as a person is biased, he or she is liable to twist the facts in a manner he or she considers favorable.

There are times when a person uses the claim that he or she is being scientific as a weapon, and therefore what they say is supposedly infallible.

If I would've listened to the scientists who state that back and neck pain is created by pinched nerves (and other physical causes), I'd still have lower back, upper back and neck pain. Fortunately, I found that psychological issues that cause energetic blocks play a big role in creating a number of pain related conditions. If you take care of the psychological issue and therefore clear the block, your pain will go away.

If a person such as Susan Blackmore had a NDE, she would view NDEs in quite a different way. As I said before, when you have such an experience it is quite clear, because what you experience can be way beyond what a mind that has had only physical experiences can create.

On a related note, even though I believe there are fraudulent mediums, I don't assume that they are all fraudulent, because if I can communicate with sprits, then why can't other people? I don't tend to receive messages for other people, because thus far it hasn't become my role in life to be a medium.

Hi Albert,

Susan is an interesting person.  She recently documented her experiments with Salvia (attention OOB dude), and in fact had a profound OOBE/NDE which is posted here:

http://near-death.com/experiences/experts09.html


The thing is, she discounts her experience later, when viewed with her scientific eye...........


M

Matthew:

Going by what she wrote about her experience, she didn't experience anything that was divine in nature. She simply experienced more and more of the physical universe. Considering that she used a drug, seance and ouija board, perhaps this isn't suprising.

I've had OBEs where I saw my surroundings as clear as I see this World and even clearer, yet my most convincing experiences were when I experienced divine being without seeing anything in particular. An experience with divine being touches you at a heart level that is hard to doubt.

When I had my night in heaven experience I understood that I was experiencing my existence as it really is, rather than what it seems to be while in this World. It was like, "oh yeah, how could I forget?" It also made perfect sense that the afterlife exists.

Blackmore is not alone in having a OBE and then later doubting the event. I have read tons of stories about this and even work with a lady who had one but doubts that it was anything other than her brain causing the feeling. I have only had a few hints at an OBE, but those hints were very powerful and they keep me on my toes as I venture forth with the understanding that it may not happen until the last breath. I find the proof for and against pretty fascinating, but I have to put myself in the "for" category because of my own experiences slight though they are.

I've found that after we have a non-physical experience that is certain while having it, our old way of thinking can click in and cause us to doubt it.  There is no way that an old way of thinking can convince us of the validity of a non-physical experience. As best as we can, we need to remember what we understood and felt as we had an experience.





Beau wrote on Oct 21^st, 2009 at 5:11pm:

Blackmore is not alone in having a OBE and then later doubting the event. I have read tons of stories about this and even work with a lady who had one but doubts that it was anything other than her brain causing the feeling. I have only had a few hints at an OBE, but those hints were very powerful and they keep me on my toes as I venture forth with the understanding that it may not happen until the last breath. I find the proof for and against pretty fascinating, but I have to put myself in the "for" category because of my own experiences slight though they are.

Here's another way to look at it. When I experience this physical World, I don't experience it in a manner where I know that I'm experiencing an actual "physical World." I have to rely on what empirical evidence says.

On the other hand, when it comes to some of my spiritual experiences, I was certain to an extent that can't be found while I am in this physical World. During the spiritual experiences, there was an underlying knowing that came from a level of being that was beyond my individual mind.

Rightly pursued, the skeptical approach ensures that spiritual experiences, though less frequent, will be far more tranformative because they defy current beliefs and expectations and therefore cannot so easily be dismissed as wishful thinking.  Mine is not a charismatic church.  But this Sunday my sermon title will be "How to Become a Prophet."  I will try to develop practical procedures from my far too technical doctoral dissertation that my audience can use for experimentation.  Prophecy in often defined and explicated in ancient Judaism and early Christianity, but this information has not found its way in popular religious books.  Part of the experimentation I will recommend includes occasions when people have exercised the gift without rccognizing it as such, i. e. without recognizing the potential for developing those fleeting experiences into a far more awesome consciousness.  I may eventually start a thread here on this subject, but I need greater clarity on the examples I should give that might be convincing enough to motivate a pursuit of the gift.  For now I'll just observe that nspired forthtelling and predictions are not central to this gift.

Don   

It's good to see sympathetic research, rather than the usual debunkers with an agenda - which mind you is as you say no worse than the other sort of wishful thinking.

It's hard to think that there's not some sort of catch 22 at play here.

I've experienced and been exposed to events which at some very deep level felt real, and have over the years experienced this feeling (or the effects of it)  leaking out to become a transformation of how i feel right 'now', and of the flow of my life.

Yet in another frame of mind i can intellectualise myself into debunking and seriously doubting what my intuition says is very real.

I can't help feeling that there's maybe a fundamental dichotomy at play - phenomena which on the one hand have no basis within our time/space perception except in the form of fleeting glimpses, and on the other an ego driven relative intellect immersed in its own self justifying perception that simply does not function in that other space.

Spirit when it acts i feel usually alters the total internal and external reality in which we are immersed, so that much like a fish (in the fish tank that is its reality) that is being transported on an airliner it can only by the vaguest of means (if it's a very smart fish indeed, and equipped to receive information from outside of the tank - a contradiction in terms  ;)) infer that it might be moving. It may be exposed to consequences of that movement (e.g. it gets dark when the light is switched off), but it can never understand their causes.

So that what we receive through guidance or experience must in fact delivered almost in code via the very limited mean of vision, language, our existing conceptual framework and so on.

Put another way - if when Spirit acts our total reality is adjusted including our perception, our memories and our beliefs how can we hope to make sense of it? We end up in a white out, where there are no reference points left by which we can judge our perceptions relative to what they were.

Is it possible that this dichotomy arises (in the end it's surely very much between  a choiceless being that has no attachment to proving anything perceived, or having an agenda one way or the other) because the two states of being are wholly incompatible?

It's much like expecting ego mind to operate in a genuinely real and loving manner  - it's simply not possible, is a contradiction in terms. One displaces, and in a sense must be chosen over the other...

Sorry, i'm groping for words here - it maybe makes no sense to you guys at all.

ian

Where would Blackmore be without her 'coming out' and dismissing PSI ?
I think the answer may be there ;-)

I think it's important to remember that Blackmore's OBE experience was drug induced if I'm not mistaken. I can understand a drug induced episode being beneficial to some but it certainly would leave room for doubt in others of a more "Scientific" Inclination.

I think we should be skeptical enough to not fall into a belief system, yet open minded enough to allow for growth. Blackmore's decision to stop trying to prove the paranormal is real and her statement that she just does not know doesn't necessarily mean that she's stopped her search for truth. Only she could answer that.

What I find interesting in her OBE account is that she stated she was wrong about what she'd seen. The example she gave was that she'd seen old metal gutters on the school and in the morning when she'd investigated she realized they were white plastic. There have been times when I've been wrong about what I thought I saw as well and have for years wondered why.

I think the answer, or at least the best one that I've found so far is that we presume an OBE is conducted in real time, but what if consciousness has a way of keeping records of everything in the past as well as in the future.

In Tom Campbell's model of reality, he indicates that there exist three types of records/databases kept in the mind of the greater consciousness system. An unactualized database that is made up of all the probabilities that were not collapsed or brought into fruition by freewill choice; an actualized database that is an accurate account of all that was collapsed/chosen, and serves as an accurate historical account upon which the probabilities in the future database is calculated.

Keeping TC's theory in mind I wonder if Susan Blackmore "traveled" within the historical database in which she saw the old metal gutters and only assumed she was wrong because she had assumed she was traveling in real time?

Personally I think anything is possible within the mind of consciousness, however, it is only those things that aid us in spiritual growth that are truly important.

Kathy

Kathy wrote: "In Tom Campbell's model of reality, he indicates that there exist three types of records/databases kept in the mind of the greater consciousness system. An unactualized database that is made up of all the probabilities that were not collapsed or brought into fruition by freewill choice; an actualized database that is an accurate account of all that was collapsed/chosen, and serves as an accurate historical account upon which the probabilities in the future database is calculated."

Recoverer responds: "When it comes to the unactualized data base, does Tom Campbell say that there is a limited number of probabilities?"

Campbell does not believe that anything is infinite, but merely infinite to our ability to conceive of it.

Albert,

Not that I know of. His description as I understand it is that the unactualized database contains all of the probabilities that could have happened, but did not happen.

Keep in mind this is only a model of reality.

K

The reason I asked the question is because I listened to some of his videos on youtube, and on the one hand he said that existence is finite, and on the other hand, if I heard him correctly, there are an unlimitied number of probabilities. This sounds contradictory, because how could there be an unlimited number of probabilities if existence is finite?

Another question I have, in an energetic sense, what is the difference between actualized memory and unactualized memory?

Some people believe that consciousness exists everywhere. Are unactualized potential realities inhabited by consciousness?

If not, say a soul on path I of probable realities decides to move on to path IIV of probable realities. Do the souls of probable reality I have to follow him, so that he can interact with conscious beings, or would he be required to take part in one of their realities? How is it determined which soul gets to choose a probable reality for all other souls? If existence is finite, and the probabilities are unlimited, their souls couldn't multiply indefinitely.

To what extent do probable realities split. Say in probable reality V I write this letter "L" at 10:04:36:00. Is there another reality where I wrote it at 10:04:36:01, another at 10:04:36:02, and so on?

One thing he said that makes sense to me is that because we can make use of the knowledge we accumulate, we can have free will. If our consciousness was forced to inhabit every probable universe, this would counteract our free will. This is why I believe it is good that he says that not all realities are actualized. But then again, which soul gets to determine which probable reality gets actualized? If one soul makes the determination, wouldn't the free will of other souls be negated?






Lights of Love wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2009 at 12:44pm:

Albert, Not that I know of. His description as I understand it is that the unactualized database contains all of the probabilities that could have happened, but did not happen. Keep in mind this is only a model of reality. K

<<I think we should be skeptical enough to not fall into a belief system, yet open minded enough to allow for growth.>>

Hi Kathy- excellent point.  We should welcome, not vilify, sincere skeptics.  We should challenge our own belief systems to guard against falling into the trap of accepting things just because others say they are true or because we want to go along in order to get along. 

<<What I find interesting in her OBE account is that she stated she was wrong about what she'd seen. The example she gave was that she'd seen old metal gutters on the school and in the morning when she'd investigated she realized they were white plastic. There have been times when I've been wrong about what I thought I saw as well and have for years wondered why.>>

On this point, William Buhlman said in one of his books that when he was having an OBE, objects in his living room were similar but not exact in their appearance.

The coffee table was there, but its shape was different, just as one example.  Other pieces of furniture were in the room but they all were somewhat changed in shape or dimensions.

I don't recall if he explained why that was, but it may be the same reason why Blackmore saw metal gutters instead of plastic.  The furniture didn't appear old fashioned (which would fit into your time theory) but just peculiarly different.

R

Whoa Albert... you have a lot of questions I don't know the answer to. PM me and I'll give you Tom's email address. He's winding up a lecture series in London and is probably behind in answering emails, etc., but I'm sure if you email him with your questions he would respond as soon as he can. I'll try to answer as many as I can... in my own understanding/opinion of course. Or you could go ask them on Tom's forum. I'm sure Ted, who helps Tom out with the forums could answer these for you.

Yes, as Beau mentioned, TC indicates that nothing is infinite because infinity cannot be mathematically calculated. Matthew kind of got into this in another post.

In TC's model, the greater whole of consciousness need only appear to be infinite, it does not have to be infinite in order for his model to be plausible. We all use words like unlimited to indicate a very, very large number of probabilities for example... I think what he really means is there exists so many probabilities that they cannot be counted or known by us and may seem to be an infinite number when in actuality there would necessarily be a limited number of probabilities. That probably does seem contradictory, but I think it is more word usage/semantics.

I'm not sure what you mean by "in an energetic sense" but it seems reasonable to me that the greater consciousness system is certainly organized enough to keep track of and separate actualized memory (database) and unactualized memory, as well as being capable of calculating future probabilities based on actualized memory. Tom uses fractals as an example of how this works. Patterns developed within consciousness that are ever changing as evolution takes place. He calls them Process Fractals and has a forum dedicated to explaining these.

Hmmm... I either don't understand your examples of probable paths followed or I don't think they are plausible. The way I think this could work is that I, Kathy, at any given point in time have a number of probabilities available to me that were calculated based on the choices I've made in the past. In other words, I have developed patterns in my past history that are likely to continue until I make a conscious decision to change the pattern. I am always free to make any choice available to me. Once I make a choice, more probabilities are calculated based on that choice and I make another choice... and so on. It's the choices I make that moves my consciousness along its path. At any time within my "decision space" I can choose another path by making a different choice that would take me in a different direction where different patterns could be developed. Hopefully the majority of my choices would promote my spiritual growth. However, in order to have freewill, we must be completely free to choose otherwise. Does that make sense?

As I understand it, the unactualized database memory isn't like a "parallel world" if that is what you are referring to with the "probable reality split" question. The unactualized database is simply like a computer that has memory stored within it. We can access this memory and revisit other choices that were available and didn't choose. It might even be possible to follow an outcome had we made a different choice and see how that would have affected our path, but we could not change the outcome of what was actualized... the choices we did make.

I think the whole point of our existence is to interact with each other and it is through our interactions that we learn and grow in the kind of love that changes our inner core being. I'm not so sure we could ever negate someone else's freewill because freewill is an attribute of consciousness itself. What our interactions do is present choices not only to ourselves, but to others as well. We are in control of and are free to choose how we think and feel, how we react, etc.

I don't know if this helped or not.

Kathy

Hi Roger,

I've seen things appear distorted like the furniture you mention. My reasoning for the appearance of this is that when OOB the rendering of what we see in the physical reality isn't the same. In other words we don't have a bodily sensory system in the nonphysical so things are rendered/appear differently. Maybe because of the different rules/laws between the physical and nonphysical. I'm only guessing of course.

Kathy

Kathy said: "Whoa Albert... you have a lot of questions I don't know the answer to. PM me and I'll give you Tom's email address. He's winding up a lecture series in London and is probably behind in answering emails, etc., but I'm sure if you email him with your questions he would respond as soon as he can. I'll try to answer as many as I can... in my own understanding/opinion of course. Or you could go ask them on Tom's forum. I'm sure Ted, who helps Tom out with the forums could answer these for you."

Albert: "If I suggested things to him that contradict what he says, in the interest of reducing his entrophy and keeping an open mind while remaining skeptical, would he consider what I say? I mean no disrespect when I asked this, I just thought it would be funny to ask what I asked. :) I don't know his theory well enough to speak about it in an autoritative manner, it is just that as I listened to some of his videos and the questions I presented in my previous post occurred to me."

Kathy: "Yes, as Beau mentioned, TC indicates that nothing is infinite because infinity cannot be mathematically calculated. Matthew kind of got into this in another post."

Albert: "I didn't read the other post you speak of, and I'm no math wizzard, but I'd be surprise if you can determine whether or not infinity exists on the basis of whether it can be mathematically calculated. I was assuming he has a more substantial reason for claiming that existence is finite."

Kathy: "In TC's model, the greater whole of consciousness need only appear to be infinite, it does not have to be infinite in order for his model to be plausible. We all use words like unlimited to indicate a very, very large number of probabilities for example... I think what he really means is there exists so many probabilities that they cannot be counted or known by us and may seem to be an infinite number when in actuality there would necessarily be a limited number of probabilities. That probably does seem contradictory, but I think it is more word usage/semantics."

Albert: "I like to make certain that semantics don't prevent us from figuring out what's true.

Kathy: "I'm not sure what you mean by "in an energetic sense" but it seems reasonable to me that the greater consciousness system is certainly organized enough to keep track of and separate actualized memory (database) and unactualized memory, as well as being capable of calculating future probabilities based on actualized memory. Tom uses fractals as an example of how this works. Patterns developed within consciousness that are ever changing as evolution takes place. He calls them Process Fractals and has a forum dedicated to explaining these."

Albert: "Whether we are speaking of actual memory or hypothetical memory, in order for each memory to exist in some way, some amount of energy would need to be used. Therefore, if Tom's theory contends that all probabilities exist in either a manifested or unmanifested form, the energy exists. If as "some" physicists contend every possibility exists, then an infinite amount of energy would be needed."

Kathy: "Hmmm... I either don't understand your examples of probable paths followed or I don't think they are plausible. The way I think this could work is that I, Kathy, at any given point in time have a number of probabilities available to me that were calculated based on the choices I've made in the past. In other words, I have developed patterns in my past history that are likely to continue until I make a conscious decision to change the pattern. I am always free to make any choice available to me. Once I make a choice, more probabilities are calculated based on that choice and I make another choice... and so on. It's the choices I make that moves my consciousness along its path. At any time within my "decision space" I can choose another path by making a different choice that would take me in a different direction where different patterns could be developed. Hopefully the majority of my choices would promote my spiritual growth. However, in order to have freewill, we must be completely free to choose otherwise. Does that make sense?"

Albert: "When I listened to Tom's video, I got the impression that he supports the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, only with the added thought that only some of these probable worlds become actualized.

When it comes to the multiple universe viewpoint, it isn't a matter of a person making a choice and using his (or her) energy to create accordingly. It is a matter of there being one universe where choice A exists, one universe where choice B exists, and so on.

If Tom spoke of multiple universes in the way some people speak of them his premise that you use freewill to reduce entrophy so you can live according to love would be negated, because it would simply be a matter of whether you find yourself in a universe where you make choices considered to be appropriate.

Tom's alternative way of viewing the many worlds theorem would provide an alternative answer, except that in order for it to be valid, a soul would need hop around amongst different probable universes according to which probability it chooses, and this brings us back to the issue of how does a soul get all of the souls it interacts with to do the same."

Kathy: "As I understand it, the unactualized database memory isn't like a "parallel world" if that is what you are referring to with the "probable reality split" question. The unactualized database is simply like a computer that has memory stored within it. We can access this memory and revisit other choices that were available and didn't choose. It might even be possible to follow an outcome had we made a different choice and see how that would have affected our path, but we could not change the outcome of what was actualized... the choices we did make."

Albert: "Perhaps we are dealing with semantics now. ;) Whether you deal with an alternate universe that exists as some form of holographic projection or play of energy, or access a database, your consciousness would separate itself from the souls it shares a database with, as soon as it decided to take part in a differing part of the database.

For example, if Beth was married to Bill, and Bill wanted to be a criminal but Beth didn't, Beth and Bill would become seperated from each other when they become involved with different parts of the database. Beth would tune into the love channel, while Bill would tune into the crime channel.

On the other hand, if it isn't a matter of universe surfing, and we simply experience our creative energy according to how we make use of it, we don't have to worry about how our soul ends up in the same universe (or the same part of the database) as another soul."

Kathy: "I think the whole point of our existence is to interact with each other and it is through our interactions that we learn and grow in the kind of love that changes our inner core being. I'm not so sure we could ever negate someone else's freewill because freewill is an attribute of consciousness itself. What our interactions do is present choices not only to ourselves, but to others as well. We are in control of and are free to choose how we think and feel, how we react, etc."

Albert: "I agree. This is one of the key reasons I find it hard to accept the many worlds interpretation as presented by some people. It negates the principle of free will.

Another reason, it isn't a matter of something such as a photon of light being either a particle, wave, or both, it is a matter of it being a unit of energy that exists in an unknown manner where it can seem like either a wave or particle, depending upon how you look at it.

Also, I find it odd that some physicists get caught up in the non-local issue, since they are speaking of a level of reality that is beyond 3d linear reality. Perhaps things are set up so you could never completely split a subatomic particle into two (I have the EPR thought experiment in mind at this point, not the two-slit experiment). Especially when you consider that all moments of a particle's history aren't actually seperated from each other, and everything is connected as one." 

Kathy: "I don't know if this helped or not."

Albert: "I don't know if what I said helps. I don't know how much you know about quantum mechanics, not to suggest that I'm expert. Going by his video, Tom incorporates quantum mechanics principles into his theory of everything, therefore, I believe a person needs to be familiar with basic quantum mechanics priniciples to know what Tom is talking about.

Someting else occured to me. Perhaps Tom believes that as opposed to there being multiple universes that exist in a substantial way, there are numerous possibilities that become a part of the universe we take part in when somebody makes them a part of this universe.

In a way, this interpretation makes more sense than the Copehagen and many world interpretations, because it allows for the possibility that probabilities can be experienced within one universe."

Albert, I don't think you understand TC's concept of other worlds or his theory for that matter. It's actually kind of funny how you think you can debate something you know so little about. You see your own perspective, but apparently don't care about the perspective of another, otherwise you would study all sides of the matter and get your facts straight.

Anyway, I only mentioned a small part of his theory that I thought might be relevant to this thread. And now we have gone way off topic. If you want to know more about MBT, read the books or forums. Somehow it doesn't seem appropriate to have this discussion on Bruce's forum when you can go directly to the source... Tom Campbell himself.

Kathy

Kathy:

If it isn't appropriate to speak about Tom Campbell's views on this forum, then why do people speak about him?

I stated and asked as I did, with the thought that somebody might point out if I'm missing something. I've read only a little of Tom's book (it's so long I don't know how I'll find time to read all of it), and I watched 13 youtube videos where he spoke. I figure this enough to speak about a couple of things he spoke about, such as how the many worlds interpretation fits in with what he says, and is the universe infinite or finite.

I believe it is okay for me to consider the many worlds interpretation and whether existence is infinite without being a Tom Campbell expert.

If other people know him well enough where they can recommend him to other people, perhaps they know him well enough to address what I said on a point by point basis.

You did so to an extent, but apparently some of the things I said weren't clear to you, even though they related to the parallel universe viewpoint. I don't know why he spoke about parallel universes on his video, if they don't relate to his big toe theory. I don't know why he gave the talk he gave (and that I listened to), if it isn't enough for a person to know what he's advocating.

If I don't care about another person's perspective, why did I bring up the questions I brought up?

I like the questions you asked Albert. I think it would be fine to discuss Tom's work here since we discuss Monroe's work and Tom worked with him, but perhaps it has taken over this thread which is not so good.

I think you would get some great replies to your questions on Tom's site and they are all pretty polite there...most of the time. They like people to read the books but there are plenty of people asking questions there who have only seen the videos too.

http://www.my-big-toe.com/phpBB34/index.php?sid=c0a2d83a929957a2d855f97e9233d544

Thank you for liking the questions Beau.

I can't say I'm interested in joining another forum.

Regarding the direction of this thread, human conversation has a way of changing its path. I wonder if I jumped into an alternate universe when I changed the direction of this thread, and brought the rest of you with me. Or do the rest of you still exist in a universe where I didn't bring this thread astray, and I'm communicating with alternate yous rather than the yous I used to know?

Can you please direct me to the universe where somebody on this forum responds to my questions? :D

I'd like to add, I didn't bring this up because I'm interested in debunking Tom Campbell. I believe it would be really good if he shares some valuble information.

I guess for the most part Albert I'm just more fascinated with questions and the potential answers than I am enamored of the answers that I give or receive. I put the board's link up there because it seems the best answer to me. But I know what you mean about trying to keep up with yet another board.