Skeptiko – Science at the Tipping Point

Dr. Julie Beischel’s newly published research on assisted after-death communication sets a new standard of proof, but don’t expect science to change its stance on psychic mediums. Photo by Craig Sunter Before becoming the preeminent researcher of medium communication, or as she likes to call it, “assisted after-death communication”, Dr. Julie Beischel was a newly-minted PhD in pharmacology and toxicology who was trying to come to grips with the loss of her mother. Grief had led Dr. Beischel to the door of Dr. Gary Schwartz whose controversial research into medium communication had drawn national attention. After several years of collaboration during which Dr. Beischel designed and implemented experiments which have become widely recognized as setting the gold standard in such research, Julie left the University of Arizona to found the Windbridge Institute. Her research into medium communication and its effect on the bereaved continues to shed light on a phenomena that flies in the face of what science is telling us about life and death, and has the potential to redefine who we are. Join Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Dr. Julie Beischel: Alex Tsakiris: You’re researching psychic mediums? Is this some kind of joke? Research and science doesn’t go with the term medium communication does it? Dr. Beischel: Science is just a tool. It’s just one way we learn how the universe works so it can be applied to anything. And there were a lot of people with strong opinions about what the capacity of mediums is. Can they report accurate and specific information? So I took the scientific method and I applied it to mediumship. Again, it’s just a tool you can apply to anything and so yes, it does go together because it’s something we don’t fully understand yet. So yes, [mediumship] is the perfect thing for science to tackle because we don’t understand it. —————————— Dr. Beischel: What we’ve found in all three of those ways that we look at scoring, we’ve achieved statistically significant positive results in a study done in 2007, and a replication study that we just published earlier in 2015. So the original study was 16 readings and this most recent study is 58. So that’s a total of 74 readings in which under these more than double-blind conditions mediums could report accurate and specific information about the deceased when no sensory information could be plausible for where they got their information… Click here for forum discussion Click here for Final Transition Conference Click here for Dr. Beischel’s Website Read Excerpts: Dr. Beischel: George Clinton; George Hamilton; George Carlin; George Strait; George Bush–either one; George Noory; George Foreman; George Washington…all you have is th...

Recognized expert in ‘Sick Building Syndrome’, Mike Jawer has discovered a potential link between environmental sensitivity and psychic phenomena. Photo by Testing Join Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Michael Jawer, author of  The Spiritual Anatomy of Emotion about his research on environmental hazards and its connection to psychic experiences. Mike Jawer: One concept that could be helpful is boundaries. This is a big part of the book and a big part of how I come at things. It’s this idea that all of us are somewhere on a spectrum of thick versus thin boundaries. It talks about how people differ as far as their connection with other people and the environment. Some people are, and you can just tell if you’ve been with them for a while, they’re kind of thick boundary people. They don’t really reach out as thoroughly as other people. They seem pretty rigid or armored and very decisive in saying this or that; using ‘or’ rather than ‘and’. Then on the other side of the spectrum you have people who you can tell after a few minutes, they’re very flexible, they seem to be empathetic, they seem to be sensitive… and whatever the opposite of armored is. These are the people who have a tendency for psychic experiences. It’s not that the others couldn’t, but all the information that I’ve gathered and others have suggested that it’s thin boundary people who literally have less between them and the environment. And if the environment is emotional–fundamentally I think that it is, that’s my thesis–they’re the ones who are more apt to experience that loss of boundary; and sort of venture out and feel what other people wouldn’t necessarily feel. Click here for forum discussion Click here for Michael Jawer’s website Click here for Michael Jawer’s blog on Psychology Today Read Excerpts: With respect to the reductionist paradigm, Mike suggests that neuroscience is making progress toward new ways of thinking about the mechanics of the mind. Mike Jawer: In the book I’m pretty critical especially in the last chapter about reductionist neuroscience because I think any reductionist approach is counterproductive and ultimately not helpful. Alex Tsakiris: Hold on, I think it’s falsified. And I think there’s a huge distinction that we need to make there. It just doesn’t fit the data. Yet they keep advancing it, and the emperor has no clothes. So the more we feed into this neuroscience model–it’s just bullshit. It doesn’t hold up to the data. Mike Jawer: Well it’s held up pretty well over hundreds of years. I’m not saying that I’m reductionist myself. I want to make that very clear. And it, like all disciplines of science, has to evolve and the problem that neuroscientists have is they accept certain tenants about humanity that hold them back. And you mentioned embodiment and that’s the main thing that I use to challenge neuroscience. It’s coming around gradually. It’s going to take a while but it’s moving in the right direction because neuroscientists need to understand that we’re not brain-based organisms. I talk about the body as an orchestra [and] you have different players, and the brain might be the conductor let’s say. But you’re not going to get any sound without the tubas and without the flutes and the trombones, the violins and so forth. And they’re all parts of us. There’s a field called psychoneuroimmunology which I discuss at length in t...

Recognized expert in ‘Sick Building Syndrome’, Mike Jawer has discovered a potential link between environmental sensitivity and psychic phenomena. Photo by Testing Join Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Michael Jawer, author of  The Spiritual Anatomy of Emotion about his research on environmental hazards and its connection to psychic experiences. Mike Jawer: One concept that could be helpful is boundaries. This is a big part of the book and a big part of how I come at things. It’s this idea that all of us are somewhere on a spectrum of thick versus thin boundaries. It talks about how people differ as far as their connection with other people and the environment. Some people are, and you can just tell if you’ve been with them for a while, they’re kind of thick boundary people. They don’t really reach out as thoroughly as other people. They seem pretty rigid or armored and very decisive in saying this or that; using ‘or’ rather than ‘and’. Then on the other side of the spectrum you have people who you can tell after a few minutes, they’re very flexible, they seem to be empathetic, they seem to be sensitive… and whatever the opposite of armored is. These are the people who have a tendency for psychic experiences. It’s not that the others couldn’t, but all the information that I’ve gathered and others have suggested that it’s thin boundary people who literally have less between them and the environment. And if the environment is emotional–fundamentally I think that it is, that’s my thesis–they’re the ones who are more apt to experience that loss of boundary; and sort of venture out and feel what other people wouldn’t necessarily feel. Click here for forum discussion Click here for Michael Jawer’s website Click here for Michael Jawer’s blog on Psychology Today Read Excerpts: With respect to the reductionist paradigm, Mike suggests that neuroscience is making progress toward new ways of thinking about the mechanics of the mind. Mike Jawer: In the book I’m pretty critical especially in the last chapter about reductionist neuroscience because I think any reductionist approach is counterproductive and ultimately not helpful. Alex Tsakiris: Hold on, I think it’s falsified. And I think there’s a huge distinction that we need to make there. It just doesn’t fit the data. Yet they keep advancing it, and the emperor has no clothes. So the more we feed into this neuroscience model–it’s just bullshit. It doesn’t hold up to the data. Mike Jawer: Well it’s held up pretty well over hundreds of years. I’m not saying that I’m reductionist myself. I want to make that very clear. And it, like all disciplines of science, has to evolve and the problem that neuroscientists have is they accept certain tenants about humanity that hold them back. And you mentioned embodiment and that’s the main thing that I use to challenge neuroscience. It’s coming around gradually. It’s going to take a while but it’s moving in the right direction because neuroscientists need to understand that we’re not brain-based organisms. I talk about the body as an orchestra [and] you have different players, and the brain might be the conductor let’s say. But you’re not going to get any sound without the tubas and without the flutes and the trombones, the violins and so forth. And they’re all parts of us. There’s a field called psychoneuroimmunology which I discuss at length in the book.

Recent study of near-death experience survivors flies in the face of neuroscience’s assertion about NDEs. photo by Carl A According to science’s current model, your minute-by-minute experience — all your thoughts, feelings, and emotions — are a product of your brain. Neuroscientists are especially fond of this worldview and as a result have been extremely resistant to near-death experience research suggesting cardiac arrest patients experience hyper-lucid, conscious experiences during a time when their brain is severely compromised. One often repeated speculation among neuroscientists has been that NDEs are a dream-like, after-the-fact recreations. But a recently published study from the University of Liège in Belgium compared the memories of NDEs with memories of others who were in coma without an NDE. They found that memories of NDEs are significantly different from coma patients without an NDE. In particular they have significantly more characteristics, like visual details, memory clarity, self-referential information (being involved in the event) and emotional content. The researchers propose that NDEs can’t be considered as imagined events, which have significantly fewer characteristics. NDE events are really perceived but since the events did not occur in reality and likely result from physiological conditions (e.g., neurological dysfunction), the events are actually hallucinatory (see also ULg video). This conclusion is based on assumptions that are inconsistent with other evidence from NDEs. Other interpretations are possible. Seven researchers from the University of Liège, led by Dr. Steven Laureys, published a report in the peer-reviewed scientific journal PLoS ONE on the characteristics of memories from near-death experiences compared with the memories from others who were in coma but did not report an NDE. The study also compared NDE memories with memories of real events and imagined events (e.g., past dreams or fantasies). This finding is a direct challenge to neuroscientists, and other NDE-non-believers who proposed that NDEs are dream-like memories of events that never happened, or are altered memories of real events which are partly or fully imagined. The study’s researchers included 21 patients who suffered from an acute brain insult and coma. The patients were divided into three groups: those reporting an NDE (≥ 7 on the Greyson scale, N=8), those reporting memories during coma but without an NDE (< 7 on the Greyson scale, N=6) and those reporting no memories of their coma (N=7). These three groups were all similar in etiology of the brain insult (traumatic, anoxic, hemorrhagic, metabolic and encephalopathic etiologies), as well as age and time since insult. The 21 coma patients were also compared with 18 healthy control subjects. The researchers measured the memory characteristics of patients using the Memory Characteristics Questionnaire (MCQ), comparing the target memories (NDE or coma memories) versus memories of real events and imagined events (e.g., past dreams or fantasies). The memory characteristics included sensory details (visual, auditory, etc.), memory clarity (e.g.,

Recent study of near-death experience survivors flies in the face of neuroscience’s assertion about NDEs. photo by Carl A According to science’s current model, your minute-by-minute experience — all your thoughts, feelings, and emotions — are a product of your brain. Neuroscientists are especially fond of this worldview and as a result have been extremely resistant to near-death experience research suggesting cardiac arrest patients experience hyper-lucid, conscious experiences during a time when their brain is severely compromised. One often repeated speculation among neuroscientists has been that NDEs are a dream-like, after-the-fact recreations. But a recently published study from the University of Liège in Belgium compared the memories of NDEs with memories of others who were in coma without an NDE. They found that memories of NDEs are significantly different from coma patients without an NDE. In particular they have significantly more characteristics, like visual details, memory clarity, self-referential information (being involved in the event) and emotional content. The researchers propose that NDEs can’t be considered as imagined events, which have significantly fewer characteristics. NDE events are really perceived but since the events did not occur in reality and likely result from physiological conditions (e.g., neurological dysfunction), the events are actually hallucinatory (see also ULg video). This conclusion is based on assumptions that are inconsistent with other evidence from NDEs. Other interpretations are possible. Seven researchers from the University of Liège, led by Dr. Steven Laureys, published a report in the peer-reviewed scientific journal PLoS ONE on the characteristics of memories from near-death experiences compared with the memories from others who were in coma but did not report an NDE. The study also compared NDE memories with memories of real events and imagined events (e.g., past dreams or fantasies). This finding is a direct challenge to neuroscientists, and other NDE-non-believers who proposed that NDEs are dream-like memories of events that never happened, or are altered memories of real events which are partly or fully imagined. The study’s researchers included 21 patients who suffered from an acute brain insult and coma. The patients were divided into three groups: those reporting an NDE (≥ 7 on the Greyson scale, N=8), those reporting memories during coma but without an NDE (< 7 on the Greyson scale, N=6) and those reporting no memories of their coma (N=7). These three groups were all similar in etiology of the brain insult (traumatic, anoxic, hemorrhagic, metabolic and encephalopathic etiologies), as well as age and time since insult. The 21 coma patients were also compared with 18 healthy control subjects. The researchers measured the memory characteristics of patients using the Memory Characteristics Questionnaire (MCQ), comparing the target memories (NDE or coma memories) versus memories of real events and imagined events (e.g., past dreams or fantasies). The memory characteristics included sensory details (visual, auditory, etc.), memory clarity (e.g.,

Interview with renowned psychic detective Noreen Renier. photo by Samuel Globus Join host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Noreen Renier renowned psychic detective and author author of A Mind For Murder and The Practical Psychic: Alex Tsakiris: What about from the standpoint of law enforcement? What changes have you seen in law enforcement over the years that you’ve been doing this and how they feel about psychic detective work? Noreen Renier: I think they’ve closed the doors much more now than they did before for one or two reasons: the harassment they get for using us, and number two, they might have more of an underground of a different level of people who are doing exactly what I’m doing only they work for different departments. They’ve used us in the past. There isn’t any reason why they haven’t trained their own to do things that people like me can do. And I’ve done some work with the remote viewers. I always thought I had to touch an item to get the energy from it. But as you know they just give the target a number and they call it a target. So the first time I did it I was really scared. So I asked them, and I know it wasn’t their protocol, but I wanted to be able to describe the person. I knew it was going to be a person and they said “MIA”. It turned out to be an FBI agent but at the time they just needed to know where he was being held captive so they could get him released. So my job was to describe the area, building or structure, the country … for them to identify where he was being held so they could negotiate his release. Click here for Noreen’s website.     Read Excerpts: With over 40 years in the field, Noreen discusses the changes she’s observed in psychic investigative work and how law enforcement has embraced and utilized the technique. Alex Tsakiris: How has the work changed for you? Has your process changed? Or has the work that’s come to you changed? And what do you see going on in general in the field of psychic investigation and in our society and how we’re orienting ourselves toward the idea that maybe someone can do these kinds of things that you do? Noreen Renier: I think that the awareness of the mind has become a little more focused. I think we’re still in kindergarten as far as the research we’re doing or even what our imaginations can create, and what the mind can do. [Such as] future events that could be helpful for medicine, could be helpful for technology; tuning into someone’s mind that’s brilliant now in that field and seeing what they might discover. I always thought that was sort of interesting. Alex Tsakiris: What about from the standpoint of law enforcement? What changes have you seen in law enforcement over the years that you’ve been doing this and how they feel about psychic detective work. Noreen Renier: I think they’ve closed the doors much more now than they did before for one or two reasons: the harassment they get for using us, and number two, they might have more of an underground or a different level of people who are doing exactly what I’m doing only they work for different departments. They’ve used us in the past. There’s no reason why they haven’t trained their own to do things that people like me can do. And I’ve done some work with the remote viewers. I always thought I had to touch an item to get the energy ...

Interview with renowned psychic detective Noreen Renier. photo by Samuel Globus Join host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Noreen Renier renowned psychic detective and author author of A Mind For Murder and The Practical Psychic: Alex Tsakiris: What about from the standpoint of law enforcement? What changes have you seen in law enforcement over the years that you’ve been doing this and how they feel about psychic detective work? Noreen Renier: I think they’ve closed the doors much more now than they did before for one or two reasons: the harassment they get for using us, and number two, they might have more of an underground of a different level of people who are doing exactly what I’m doing only they work for different departments. They’ve used us in the past. There isn’t any reason why they haven’t trained their own to do things that people like me can do. And I’ve done some work with the remote viewers. I always thought I had to touch an item to get the energy from it. But as you know they just give the target a number and they call it a target. So the first time I did it I was really scared. So I asked them, and I know it wasn’t their protocol, but I wanted to be able to describe the person. I knew it was going to be a person and they said “MIA”. It turned out to be an FBI agent but at the time they just needed to know where he was being held captive so they could get him released. So my job was to describe the area, building or structure, the country … for them to identify where he was being held so they could negotiate his release. Click here for Noreen’s website.     Read Excerpts: With over 40 years in the field, Noreen discusses the changes she’s observed in psychic investigative work and how law enforcement has embraced and utilized the technique. Alex Tsakiris: How has the work changed for you? Has your process changed? Or has the work that’s come to you changed? And what do you see going on in general in the field of psychic investigation and in our society and how we’re orienting ourselves toward the idea that maybe someone can do these kinds of things that you do? Noreen Renier: I think that the awareness of the mind has become a little more focused. I think we’re still in kindergarten as far as the research we’re doing or even what our imaginations can create, and what the mind can do. [Such as] future events that could be helpful for medicine, could be helpful for technology; tuning into someone’s mind that’s brilliant now in that field and seeing what they might discover. I always thought that was sort of interesting. Alex Tsakiris: What about from the standpoint of law enforcement? What changes have you seen in law enforcement over the years that you’ve been doing this and how they feel about psychic detective work. Noreen Renier: I think they’ve closed the doors much more now than they did before for one or two reasons: the harassment they get for using us, and number two, they might have more of an underground or a different level of people who are doing exactly what I’m doing only they work for different departments. They’ve used us in the past. There’s no reason why they haven’t trained their own to do things that people like me can do. And I’ve done some work with the remote viewers. I always thought I had to touch an item to get the energy from it.

John Horgan is a top-notch science journalist, but he’s looking toward consciousness research to discover where science is heading. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with science writer and author John Horgan: John Horgan: I think consciousness studies is the most exciting frontier in science right now. I’m really burned out on cosmology and particle physics. They’re still peddling multiverses and string theory and it seems stale… and I don’t even think it’s very scientific. But, by default, I still am a materialist to the extent that I think if there will be understanding of consciousness, and mind in general, it will come from probing the physiological underpinnings of the mind which, as far as we know, is the brain itself. Alex Tsakiris: What I have a problem with is the fundamental assumption — the paradigm — “mind=brain.” [This idea] that you are a biological robot in a meaningless universe. But the real thing that bugs me is we have good evidence that [this assumption] has been falsified. And if you look at the story arc, 20 years ago no one was talking about consciousness being an emergent property of the brain (a popular theory in consciousness research suggesting your mind mysteriously emerges from the brain by some unknown process). And there wasn’t some discovery that brought that on. It was a default/fall back position, because these guys who are peddling this “consciousness is an illusion” thing, got beaten down by the data. Click here for YouTube version Click here for forum discussion Click here for John’s video interviews on Bloggingheads TV   Read Excerpts: John talks about where his love of science began and how the topic appealed to his quest to explore the deepest truths of the universe and consciousness. Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome award-winning science writer and author, John Horgan. John has written a great deal about scientific dogmatism, materialism, consciousness, and so many of the other topics we love to talk about here on Skeptiko. He’s also written several books that we’ll want to talk about in this interview including, The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age; Rational Mysticism: Spirituality Meets Science in the Search for Enlightenment; and The End of War. John, it’s great to have you on Skeptiko. Thanks so much for joining me. John Horgan: Thanks for having me on, Alex. Alex Tsakiris: First off, I have to congratulate you on this fabulous career that you’ve been able to put together. You’re really a terrific writer but as you know that doesn’t often translate into having a successful, sustainable career. I think you give hope to people who love to write and love science. Especially for people who aren’t afraid to ruffle feathers, but don’t know if there really is a path for them to be honest in their writing. So, I guess the first question is, how did a provocateur like you make it as a science writer?  And number two, is it still possible for someone to do the same? John Horgan: I certainly hope so. Thanks for that very flattering introduction. When I got into science journalism it was in the early ‘80s, and I think I entered it as a conventional,

John Horgan is a top-notch science journalist, but he’s looking toward consciousness research to discover where science is heading. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with science writer and author John Horgan: John Horgan: I think consciousness studies is the most exciting frontier in science right now. I’m really burned out on cosmology and particle physics. They’re still peddling multiverses and string theory and it seems stale… and I don’t even think it’s very scientific. But, by default, I still am a materialist to the extent that I think if there will be understanding of consciousness, and mind in general, it will come from probing the physiological underpinnings of the mind which, as far as we know, is the brain itself. Alex Tsakiris: What I have a problem with is the fundamental assumption — the paradigm — “mind=brain.” [This idea] that you are a biological robot in a meaningless universe. But the real thing that bugs me is we have good evidence that [this assumption] has been falsified. And if you look at the story arc, 20 years ago no one was talking about consciousness being an emergent property of the brain (a popular theory in consciousness research suggesting your mind mysteriously emerges from the brain by some unknown process). And there wasn’t some discovery that brought that on. It was a default/fall back position, because these guys who are peddling this “consciousness is an illusion” thing, got beaten down by the data. Click here for YouTube version Click here for forum discussion Click here for John’s video interviews on Bloggingheads TV   Read Excerpts: John talks about where his love of science began and how the topic appealed to his quest to explore the deepest truths of the universe and consciousness. Alex Tsakiris: Today we welcome award-winning science writer and author, John Horgan. John has written a great deal about scientific dogmatism, materialism, consciousness, and so many of the other topics we love to talk about here on Skeptiko. He’s also written several books that we’ll want to talk about in this interview including, The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age; Rational Mysticism: Spirituality Meets Science in the Search for Enlightenment; and The End of War. John, it’s great to have you on Skeptiko. Thanks so much for joining me. John Horgan: Thanks for having me on, Alex. Alex Tsakiris: First off, I have to congratulate you on this fabulous career that you’ve been able to put together. You’re really a terrific writer but as you know that doesn’t often translate into having a successful, sustainable career. I think you give hope to people who love to write and love science. Especially for people who aren’t afraid to ruffle feathers, but don’t know if there really is a path for them to be honest in their writing. So, I guess the first question is, how did a provocateur like you make it as a science writer?  And number two, is it still possible for someone to do the same? John Horgan: I certainly hope so. Thanks for that very flattering introduction. When I got into science journalism it was in the early ‘80s, and I think I entered it as a conventional,

Are precognitive dreams real? Andy Paquette is a dream researcher who has compiled more than anyone in history. Dreaming of someone death is scary enough, but finding out you’re right…  When Andy Paquette left his job as a leading Hollywood film animator he had no idea he would wind up compiling the largest database of precognitive paranormal dreams in history, but that’s what happened. Andy, who is currently finishing up his PhD at King’s College, London is the author of Dreamer: 20 years of psychic dreams and how they changed my life has just published groundbreaking paper in the Journal of Scientific Exploration that examines precognitive dreams about death: A New Approach to Veridicality in Dream Psi Studies; Vol. 26, No. 3 I recently had a chance to talk to Andy about the implications of his research into psychic of death dreams. Here are some excerpts and a link to the full interview. Click here for YouTube version Click here for forum discussion Over the years of researching and documenting his dreams, Andy has had some significant dreams involving death. His latest research asks whether dreams allow us to cross the veil of the afterlife: Alex Tsakiris: Walk us through some examples and really nail down when you say, you had a dream about them and then you found out that they had died two weeks earlier. People are going to immediately say, you could have known somehow, some way that they were dead. Walk us through how you verify that you really have something. Andy Paquette: I had one dream where a woman came to me and was telling me a person that I knew who happened to be a clerk at a store I’d been to maybe five times in my life had a person close to him–a relative had just died and that he was really despondent about this. As a result he was abusing drugs and alcohol and she warned me that he would die if he continued abusing these things. And she told me that she wanted me to go talk to him and give him this warning that she was giving me. Alex Tsakiris: So this is more or less a complete stranger? Andy Paquette: I have talked to the guy [before]. I bought a couple of things from him, and I did know his first name but we really hadn’t talked about anything other than is this paint available and where is it? That was the extent of our couple of conversations. And it was in a new city, I had just moved to Phoenix so it’s not like I knew the area very well either. Anyway, I went upstairs and I told my wife about the dream and she says, are you going to go talk to him and I said, are you kidding me? Go up to this guy I don’t know and [tell] him this weird dream? What if he hasn’t had a relative that died? That’s going to be really embarrassing. And she really insisted and said you have to do this. She was so insistent that finally I said fine. But it was a pain because this store was 45 minutes from where I live by car and [it’s] expensive gas-wise. So I drove all the way down there, I get to the store and I see this guy behind the counter and I’m [thinking], oh great, how do I do this? So I said to him, and I don’t want to use his real name so I’ll just call him Frank. I said, Frank, and I gave him the name of some shipment that he might’ve had. He said, oh yeah they’re in the back. So we get to the back of the store and I said you know, it’s kind of a funny thing,

Are precognitive dreams real? Andy Paquette is a dream researcher who has compiled more than anyone in history. Dreaming of someone death is scary enough, but finding out you’re right…  When Andy Paquette left his job as a leading Hollywood film animator he had no idea he would wind up compiling the largest database of precognitive paranormal dreams in history, but that’s what happened. Andy, who is currently finishing up his PhD at King’s College, London is the author of Dreamer: 20 years of psychic dreams and how they changed my life has just published groundbreaking paper in the Journal of Scientific Exploration that examines precognitive dreams about death: A New Approach to Veridicality in Dream Psi Studies; Vol. 26, No. 3 I recently had a chance to talk to Andy about the implications of his research into psychic of death dreams. Here are some excerpts and a link to the full interview. Click here for YouTube version Click here for forum discussion Over the years of researching and documenting his dreams, Andy has had some significant dreams involving death. His latest research asks whether dreams allow us to cross the veil of the afterlife: Alex Tsakiris: Walk us through some examples and really nail down when you say, you had a dream about them and then you found out that they had died two weeks earlier. People are going to immediately say, you could have known somehow, some way that they were dead. Walk us through how you verify that you really have something. Andy Paquette: I had one dream where a woman came to me and was telling me a person that I knew who happened to be a clerk at a store I’d been to maybe five times in my life had a person close to him–a relative had just died and that he was really despondent about this. As a result he was abusing drugs and alcohol and she warned me that he would die if he continued abusing these things. And she told me that she wanted me to go talk to him and give him this warning that she was giving me. Alex Tsakiris: So this is more or less a complete stranger? Andy Paquette: I have talked to the guy [before]. I bought a couple of things from him, and I did know his first name but we really hadn’t talked about anything other than is this paint available and where is it? That was the extent of our couple of conversations. And it was in a new city, I had just moved to Phoenix so it’s not like I knew the area very well either. Anyway, I went upstairs and I told my wife about the dream and she says, are you going to go talk to him and I said, are you kidding me? Go up to this guy I don’t know and [tell] him this weird dream? What if he hasn’t had a relative that died? That’s going to be really embarrassing. And she really insisted and said you have to do this. She was so insistent that finally I said fine. But it was a pain because this store was 45 minutes from where I live by car and [it’s] expensive gas-wise. So I drove all the way down there, I get to the store and I see this guy behind the counter and I’m [thinking], oh great, how do I do this? So I said to him, and I don’t want to use his real name so I’ll just call him Frank. I said, Frank, and I gave him the name of some shipment that he might’ve had. He said, oh yeah they’re in the back. So we get to the back of the store and I said you know, it’s kind of a funny thing,

As a philosopher, Dr. Evan Thompson thinks neuroscience model of near-death experience is fine, but what do NDE researchers say? Debate over the science of NDEs. Interview with Evan Thompson, author of Waking, Dreaming, Being on whether near-death experience evidence falsifies the neuroscience model of consciousness. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Ken Jordan about the consciousness revolution and the shifting paradigm in science and our culture: Alex Tsakiris: I do have to take exception… you’re overthrowing 50 years of neuroscience that claims to understand the correlation between, for example, EEG or FMRI and  consciousness. Are we just going to throw that out the window and say, “Well, it’s all just a mystery, folks. All that stuff we thought we knew, we now don’t know.” All because we need to step over this near-death experience evidence. Evan Thompson: There’s a sense in which I agree part of your point, which is, we have no neurological model for [NDEs]. However, It doesn’t follow that we have good reason to think that these (NDE) experiences transcend the brain… for reasons that we’ve just been reviewing… mainly that all of the inferences along the way from the cardiac arrest shut down, the EEG flat line, the subjective sense of when the experience occurs in relation to the objective timing of what’s going on in the brain – our knowledge of what’s going on in the brain based on an inference of a flat line EEG that all of that is so fragile that we can’t say, “Well, these experiences transcend the brain.” We just don’t have that evidence. Alex Tsakiris: It kind of depends on how you slice and dice the data. I mean I just gave you verifiable empirical data. So, I think we have to talk about these two competing theories and which one best fits the data.  And whether the neuroscience model of brain-based consciousness really holds up [against the near-death experience data], or whether if it’s been falsified.  It feels like we’re kind of propping up [the neuroscience model] here and trying to make it fit. I mean, if we’re going to throw all the [neuroscience evidence] out, and say, “You know we no longer have this understanding of  correlation between EEG and FMRI and consciousness [for these NDE cases].” Then, I think all bets are off for the neuroscience model in general. Click here for Evan’s website Click here for YouTube version Click here for forum discussion     Read Excerpts From The Interview: Alex: Now one thing you do seem to be moving past in the book, and in your other writings is this neuro-reductionist materialism. Often times, associated with the Daniel Dennett, “consciousness is an illusion” stuff. Now, I take it that’s out for you? Evan: Yes. Stated that way, I wouldn’t subscribe to it. I know Dennett quite well. I actually did a post doc with Dennett, and I have great admiration for his work. He was very generous with me. However, the view that consciousness is an illusion and that basically what neural science tells us about how the brain works today that that’s enough to understand consciousness, I think it’s fair to say that that’s Dennett’s view. That’s not my view. I think there is really a fundamental gap in our understanding. We have an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the brain, but we really don’t understand how the brain could be the basis where the source or the kind of contingent platform, however you want to put it, for consciousness.

As a philosopher, Dr. Evan Thompson thinks neuroscience model of near-death experience is fine, but what do NDE researchers say? Debate over the science of NDEs. Interview with Evan Thompson, author of Waking, Dreaming, Being on whether near-death experience evidence falsifies the neuroscience model of consciousness. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Ken Jordan about the consciousness revolution and the shifting paradigm in science and our culture: Alex Tsakiris: I do have to take exception… you’re overthrowing 50 years of neuroscience that claims to understand the correlation between, for example, EEG or FMRI and  consciousness. Are we just going to throw that out the window and say, “Well, it’s all just a mystery, folks. All that stuff we thought we knew, we now don’t know.” All because we need to step over this near-death experience evidence. Evan Thompson: There’s a sense in which I agree part of your point, which is, we have no neurological model for [NDEs]. However, It doesn’t follow that we have good reason to think that these (NDE) experiences transcend the brain… for reasons that we’ve just been reviewing… mainly that all of the inferences along the way from the cardiac arrest shut down, the EEG flat line, the subjective sense of when the experience occurs in relation to the objective timing of what’s going on in the brain – our knowledge of what’s going on in the brain based on an inference of a flat line EEG that all of that is so fragile that we can’t say, “Well, these experiences transcend the brain.” We just don’t have that evidence. Alex Tsakiris: It kind of depends on how you slice and dice the data. I mean I just gave you verifiable empirical data. So, I think we have to talk about these two competing theories and which one best fits the data.  And whether the neuroscience model of brain-based consciousness really holds up [against the near-death experience data], or whether if it’s been falsified.  It feels like we’re kind of propping up [the neuroscience model] here and trying to make it fit. I mean, if we’re going to throw all the [neuroscience evidence] out, and say, “You know we no longer have this understanding of  correlation between EEG and FMRI and consciousness [for these NDE cases].” Then, I think all bets are off for the neuroscience model in general. Click here for Evan’s website Click here for YouTube version Click here for forum discussion     Read Excerpts From The Interview: Alex: Now one thing you do seem to be moving past in the book, and in your other writings is this neuro-reductionist materialism. Often times, associated with the Daniel Dennett, “consciousness is an illusion” stuff. Now, I take it that’s out for you? Evan: Yes. Stated that way, I wouldn’t subscribe to it. I know Dennett quite well. I actually did a post doc with Dennett, and I have great admiration for his work. He was very generous with me. However, the view that consciousness is an illusion and that basically what neural science tells us about how the brain works today that that’s enough to understand consciousness, I think it’s fair to say that that’s Dennett’s view. That’s not my view. I think there is really a fundamental gap in our understanding. We have an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the brain, but we really don’t understand how the brain could be the basis where the source or the kind of contingent platform, however you want to put it, for consciousness.

They may shun religious dogma, and scientific dogma too, but Ken Jordan of Reality Sandwich has tapped into a group that’s restarting the consciousness culture revolution. Psychedelics are part of the culture change. Interview with Ken Jordan co-founder and executive editor of Reality Sandwich and Evolver of on the consciousness revolution and its impact on culture. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Ken Jordan about the consciousness revolution and the shifting paradigm in science and our culture: Alex Tsakiris: You mentioned the FOIA Act and how [the government released] 10,000 pages. Well, go get those 10,000 pages today! You can’t get crap out of the FOIA Act. And don’t take our African-American-slash-black president and hold him up as any example. He’s the one who squashed all that stuff. He’s the one who not only rubber-stamped but [also] further promoted all the right stripping that was endorsed and supported by his predecessors–the Bush & Cheney regime. So I think what a lot of people are trying to figure out in this consciousness transformation that you guys are so much about in terms of Reality Sandwich — they want to know what’s real. And they want to know what’s real from two angles… because I think we get the personal transformation angle. So, Psychedelics? I can do that. I can be transformed. Spiritual practices? I can do that. I can be transformed. But you’re also holding out the idea that there can be this cultural transformation and that that’s really possible. And I have to wonder… is it really possible in the society we live in? In the culture? In the post-911? In the flag-waving, support our troops kind of culture that we have. Ken Jordan: Well, there are no total victories. Obama is a partial victory. Obama’s a huge victory for the Civil Rights Movement. Whatever he does as president is almost secondary if you ask me. There are things that he does that I appreciate, and there are a lot of things that he does that obviously I do not appreciate in the political climate that we live in. I think he’s made some choices and has some allies that I wouldn’t have. At the same time, the simple fact that he won, and then won again in the same country where Malcolm X and Martin Luther King were shot 50 years earlier… to me is a sign of change. It’s massive. And you have to take your wins. If you don’t take your wins and accept them frankly for the victories that they are, you’re really impoverishing your own sense of what kind of change is possible. In many ways you can look at the movements of the ‘60s and see some serious wins that have transformed not just American culture but the culture of the world in a very positive way. The opening that came out of the ‘60s, the psychedelic culture, led to a very different understanding of spirituality that is possible now in America that was unthinkable back then. It’s not simply, “oh I took psychedelics…” A lot of people take psychedelics and they don’t get their opening. They don’t get their awakening. But there are a lot more people who are having interesting awakenings at this point outside of the restrictive confines of traditional religious practices. My sense is, and this is one of the interesting things about having the gig that I’ve got, my sense is that this is unprecedented in American culture. And that is a direct continuation of what happened in the 1960s. But this isn’t just about the ‘60s, that kind of opening, that kind of engagement or awakening. This is something that’s been popping up through the culture, through societies throughout history. These are deep currents, and there are moments where I think the spiritual energy breaks through and becomes more present. And there are moments where it becomes more oppressed and under the surface.

When Western medical researchers wanted to unlock the healing properties of plants they asked Amazonian shaman. Simon Green is doing the same. Remarkable healing stories. Interview with Simon Green healer and founder of Quantum Life Bodyworks on Shamanism and healing work with plant medicine. Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with Simon Green about his Shamanistic practices and the healing properties of plant medicine: Alex Tsakiris: Maybe we need to add a little Yankee imperialism into the mix too and say, “ayahuasca… it’s DMT… I’ll figure out a way to crush it down, crank it out, give it to people, and lo and behold, they have a lot of the same kinds of experiences.” Simon Green: …that’s a very common troupe in stories about ayahuasca but in fact, ayahuasca is called “ayahuasca” because of the vine ayahuasca which is not the tryptamine-containing compound or plant. Alex Tsakiris: It’s the blocker, right? It’s the one that blocks it in your stomach so that it doesn’t run through so you can process the DMT? Simon Green: Correct. Exactly. At a biochemical level but in fact you can take ayahuasca without any DMT admixtures and have a similar experience. The visions aren’t as bright. The DMT containing plant gives brightness to the visions but it’s the intelligence of the ayahuasca, of the vine; that plant that contains the MAOI inhibitors that allows for the oral application of DMT. They’re not the same thing and as you mentioned, Rick as I recall, many of his subjects were extraordinarily confused by what they encountered or surprised to say the least. I think this is one of those instances where we can say well there’s that pharmacological attitude of taking the constituent chemical saying, well that plant works because of the constituent chemical and not looking at the bigger picture and saying well, there’s a relationship between the human and the plant they’re envibing. And we could’ve gone to those people who have a longstanding with those plants and say, what do you think about DMT versus MAOI inhibitors? Click here for Simon’s website Click here for YouTube version Click here for forum discussion More interviews with Alex on WhyScienceIsWrong.com Read Excerpts From The Interview: Simon talks about the challenges of measuring the processes taking place in healing ceremonies and the importance of historical experiences–[7min.51sec-10min.38sec] Alex Tsakiris: We were chatting before about the conversation I had with Paranthroplogy journal editor, Jack Hunter, who is taking an anthropological approach to saying as we look at how these extended consciousness experiences are happening, how do we really nail down what’s happening scientifically? As you and I were talking about, is it a ritual doing it? Is it the spiritual doing it? Could you do this just as well with a Ouija board to somehow access these spirits? Or with a psychic or a medium? And it really raises the question of, we’re playing around with not only these substances but we’re playing around with these spirits in a way that we really don’t understand. What are we getting into when we do this? Simon Green: I think we get ourselves in many cultural backwaters. I’m thinking for example of all the technology that we’ve adopted in modern western culture. We adopted without question mobile telephones or tobacco cigarettes; or all of the new chemicals that come on to the marketplace that are fantastic.