Sunday, January 31, 2021

Episode 38 - Visiting the Place Between Here and There Part 2 - Steve Weber's NDE

Listen to the Episode

YouTube Counterpart

You can find all other Seeking I online profiles at the Seeking I Website

Steve Weber experienced a unique Near Death Experience in 2015 when he was sideswiped on his Harley Davidson by a truck, which broke his spine and landed him in a 3 week coma. Throughout this time, he found himself experiencing scene after scene of various situations and environments in which he met with people from his life, alive and dead, faced multiple repetitions of a review of his life, and faced a miraculous recovery of his injuries, leading him to alter his lifestyle in a more spiritual way from then on.

He and his partner, Katherine, went on to document his experience in their book: The Place Between Here and There, a True Beautiful Near Death Experience.

In this episode we look further into Steve's experience and how it has shaped his life.

Tuesday, January 19, 2021

Episode 37 - Induced After Death Communication with Graham Maxey

 Listen to the Episode

YouTube Counterpart

You can find all other Seeking I online profiles at the Seeking I Website

Graham Maxey is a grief and loss counselling professional who specializes in a somewhat under-the-radar technique known as Induced After Death Communication or IADC. The technique was developed by retired psychologist Dr Allan Botkin who discovered its effects after readjusting the procedure of EMDR (Eye Moment Desensitization and Reprocessing), a form of therapy proven very effective in dealing with trauma and other mental conditions.

In this episode we take a look at the technique and its implications on modern psychotheraputic processes. IADC is perhaps one of the most consistently successful forms of therapy I have heard of, with early implementation trials (performed by Allan Botkin himself) giving a >90% probability of the client connecting with their deceased loved ones (or having that experience at least). After the process was made public, this figure dropped to around 75-80%, indicating that expectation can prove detrimental to establishing a connection, or suggests at the least that the mind can act as a barrier to the experience. However, IADC as a therapy seems to be one of the most healing forms of therapy available, with almost all clients reporting a miraculous decrease in the amount of stress and suffering they experience.

This seems to certainly be a technique that should be promoted more into the mainstream practices of psychotherapy, especially within the field of grief, so that we can study and learn more about the effectiveness and efficiency of IADC, and where it can be brought into common application.

You can find Allan Botkin's website for Induced After Death Communication here for more information.

Monday, January 18, 2021

A Lay Researcher's Opinion on the Evidence for the Brain Produces Consciousness Hypothesis


This is my opinion on the data that I have seen after spending a lot of time reading, and more importantly actually talking with some of the world's leading researchers in some of the phenomena outlined below. You can find these conversations for free at The Seeking I Website. Please note I am NOT formally trained in Science or Philosophy, and the opinions below are my opinion solely, and not that of the general scientific or philosophic community. From the point of view of a lay person with a lot of interest in these subjects, I believe my statements to be accurate, but acknowledge that they may be inconsistent with any research done which I have not as of yet been introduced to. In short, I may be totally wrong, but I stand by my beliefs as I hope everyone who reads this will.

I believe that all evidence (at least all I have so far seen) to suggest emergence (brain creates the mind) can equally be used to suggest filtration (the brain receives and filters some as yet unknown non-local consciousness). Indeed, I would argue that given currently inexplicable anomalous experience through the means and methods of material science, the latter is the more parsimonious hypothesis. Let's take a look at some examples of said evidence:

Evidences for the hypothesis that the brain produces consciousness

1) Hit yourself in the head and you can remove or greatly alter consciousness and the mind = the brain creates the mind.

This is reasonable certainly, but the conclusion is not the only one. What happens when you throw a working radio against a wall, or hit the hell out of it with a hammer (perhaps you have a personal vendetta against said radio)? You would expect that A) the broadcast stops entirely, or B) the quality of the sound is greatly diminished or distorted. That being said, the translation or interpretation of the core data being received by the receiver on the motherboard is effected. The core data however remains unaffected, ie the information within the radio wave transmission. Taking this process as an analogy, I see no reason why this factor cannot equally occur should the brain act as a wet, squishy radio receiver. This would be an a-priori assumption which is ultimately unfalsifiable, however given the aforementioned phenomena that cannot be accounted for currently via materialistic means, but is parsimonious with a receiver/filter theory, I think we can posit it here.

2) Alzheimer's and other brain degenerative diseases lead to lack of lucidity and impairments/changes of the mind = the brain creates the mind.

Again, looking at a radio. If you sever the motherboard connections, you will ultimately expect that the sound of the broadcast will inevitably be impaired. If you cut the right wires, or at least damage the connection (say grind down a particular wire so that the electrical transmission is limited, why the hell you would do this is beyond me but there you are), you can make the voice of the speaker low pitched, crackly, robotic etc. Like the brain, cutting certain connections will not effect the sound (mind), but will cause other issues. Maybe the LED that lights up to show the radio is on will no longer work, and maybe if you cut a certain neuronal connection your legs will no longer work properly but the mind remains unaffected. Only particular connections on the motherboard will cause changes in the receiving and processing capabilities of the radio waves. Combatting this, we have phenomena such as terminal/paradoxical lucidity which in physical terms would suggest a sudden regeneration of severed connections which is able to return full lucidity despite the days, months, weeks or years of degenerative disease. This often occurs days or hours (sometimes minutes) prior to death, so to me seems a stretch to say that sudden regeneration could occur. Especially given that we have no mechanism as to how this could possibly happen. A disconnection of pure consciousness (radio waves) from the physical brain, removing the impairments and allowing for total experience of the core data seems reasonable, again when taken in accordance with other phenomena such as NDEs, OBEs, apparent PSI phenomena etc. Of course, it's not a perfect analogy because the brain is perhaps the most advanced machine in the natural universe of which we have only scratched the surface of understanding.

3) General Anesthesia takes consciousness away. If consciousness is separate, we would not ever be unconscious.

I'm not sure about this one, it's a very good point, and one I have pondered over before. However, there is now evidence according to the discussion I had with Dr Bernardo Kastrup that suggest that we are in fact still consciousness whilst under general anesthesia and also while in deep sleep. This is the link he sent me pointing to the evidence:

My thoughts are this: if we suppose that the brain IS indeed a filter/receiver of consciousness, we can expect that experience is limited to the brain's ability to process and translate physical sensory information into our core experience of consciousness. We know that the brain is responsible for generating effectively an illusion of reality based on the sensory information it receives, and can reasonably assume in the creation of memories (which I would then argue are stored in the core consciousness ... "field" if you like). So when we interfere with it's ability to receive and translate these sensory stimuli, and it's ability to create and 'send' memories into awareness, of course we can expect to be seen as unconscious. There is no way of knowing if we were conscious, but due to the effects of the anesthetics, were unable to store the experience in consciousness. There is no way to tell one way or the other. Similar to those who have been near death and have NOT reported an NDE (according to Pim Van Lommel, this accounts for approximately 80% of his sample), we cannot know if they did not have an experience, or DID have an experience which was not saved in memory. Why this is the case with some and not others, we don't know, but it is certainly not evidence against the phenomenon. I'm not certain on my opinions in this instance in the case of general anesthesia, these are just my uneducated thoughts on the matter.

4) We can see consistent activity in the parts of the brain and the chemicals it produces that creates certain emotions and sensations = brain creates these emotions and sensations.

Not really much to say about this, anyone who brings this point up are showing correlation, not causation. When I play my piano, a light shows telling me which key I pressed and which note the sound suggests (eg, I press the C key, I hear a note, and the light shows up as 'C') This happens every time, but does not suggest that the light that tells me what note I pressed produces the 'C' sound itself. An example of correlation.

5) Anyone who believes that the brain does not create consciousness are peddling woo and pseudoscience.

Good one, now go back to your "" forum. This is not a useful nor productive statement to make.

6) We know that the brain produces consciousness.

The majority of the population take this without question. After all, given all the evidence above does it not make sense? Well yes it does, but so does my hypothesis... and mine can account for the anomalous experiences that the 'brain creates consciousness' hypothesis can not at this moment in time. Could it be that there are material processes that could account for them that we haven't discovered yet? Absolutely! However given the ongoing hard problem of consciousness, and the presence of anomalous experience. Should we not consider the possibility that maybe the assumed scientific method that has worked so well thus far is perhaps beginning to find limitations, and may in fact not be the be all and end all to the pursuit of knowledge? Now that we have identified phenomena that cannot be explained, instead of stating a promissory note that material science WILL explain it eventually, we should at least try branching out and developing new means and methods outside of 'shut up and calculate'. We should begin taking 'anecdotes' of millions (estimated up to 1 billion) people, many of which have been third party verified to include veridical perception, seriously and not dismiss them as impossible off the bat. Science is NOT 'shut up and calculate', science is NOT one method that must be adhered to. Science is the very process of discovery which must be plastic; able to be developed and changed when new evidence and new phenomena challenge the dominant methodologies. The current scientific method, like all before it, is assumed. It has worked tremendously during the past several hundred years, however there are now phenomena which are suggesting it's time to adjust and advance.

Brief Conclusion

To say 'We know that the brain produces consciousness" is false. We do not. We have no mechanism as to how unconscious matter can give rise to 'qualia' or experience. The whole foundation of the hard problem is based on this fact. True, we also have no mechanism as to how physical matter could act as a receiver to an unknown 'field' or 'essence' of consciousness, and indeed no mechanism as to how that field would even operate. However, we now have observed and verified phenomena that suggest that the latter process may be worth considering, as it is certainly (in my opinion) much more parsimonious a theory for all the data we observe than that of physical matter alone giving rise to experience.

Wednesday, January 6, 2021

Episode 36 - Matthew Forrest's Theory of Everything Part 2

 Listen to the Episode

YouTube Counterpart

You can find all other Seeking I online profiles at the Seeking I Website

Due to the depth and length of this discussion I had with author and entrepreneur Matthew Forrest, I have broken it up into multiple 15-20 minute segments. We look at the nature of the universe, the nature of reality and the nature of conscious altogether to from Matt's Big Theory of Everything which he believes himself will be of great benefit to modern science, comparable to discoveries made by Einstein, Bohm and Tesla. Therefore, these episodes with Matt are certainly worth a listen and a share among friends and communities of similar interests.

You can find Matt's books and websites below:

The Meaning of Life by M.H.Forrest

Off Grid Entrepreneur Facebook Page

ITZA Global

Friday, January 1, 2021

Episode 35 - The Theory and Skepticism of Reincarnation with Dr James Matlock

Listen to the Episode

YouTube Counterpart

You can find all other Seeking I online profiles at the Seeking I Website

Dr. Jim Matlock, author of “Signs of Reincarnation” (2019), has worked at the American Society for Psychical Research in New York City and at the Rhine Research Center in Durham, North Carolina. He is presently a Research Fellow at the Parapsychology Foundation. His chief research interests are the history of parapsychology, anthropology of religion, and reincarnation. He follows on from the famous research of Dr Ian Stevenson, founder of the Division of Perceptual Studies in the University of Virginia.

In this second part we look at the theory underlying the conclusion of the research that Reincarnation occurs, and the skepticism that surrounds it. We touch briefly on an example of misinformation which has triggered erroneous skepticism on the famous Reincarnation case of James Lininger, and why we must always look fully into the details of a case before drawing conclusions.

Episode 66 - Dr Melvin Morse on Child NDEs, Remote Viewing and his Regretted Past Conviction

Listen to the Episode YouTube Counterpart You can find all other Seeking I online profiles at the  Seeking I Website In this episode, I spe...