Summary judgment: Fenwick excerpt #19

Chief Judge: The most difficult and responsible moment for this inquiry has come.

We need to focus on the fact that we are here to demonstrate that there is an afterlife, and therefore focus on the meaning of the words after and life, and above all on maintaining individuality after the body has ceased to have its own physical functions. I remind you that we are looking for evidence and must keep in mind that the concept of evidence has different meanings in different contexts. We listened to the evidence of experts who presented arguments only at first sight conflicting.

What convinced me of the words of Dr Fenwick is that phenomena such as remote viewing and precognition have now been proven to be verifiable and repeatable even when they are approached with scientific method and rigor. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to explain them with a model that is unanimously recognized or based on currently known laws of physics. Moreover, precognition and remote viewing do not prove that there is an existence after death.

On the other hand, the descriptions of near-death experiences and reincarnation are interesting. These tell us without a doubt that some individuals have experienced a reality different from the one we know, and that others seem to have inherited an identity lived by individuals other than themselves. These experiences are told by people from different ages, cultures, and education.

Although I am convinced that what was reported can constitute evidence for life beyond death beyond reasonable doubt, Dr Moretti has pointed out to us that, when we describe the experiences of facing death (NDE, ADE, or reincarnation), they are based on human stories. We humans are limited in describing what could exist in another reality. However, Dr Moretti has proposed a model that can offer an explanation.

The proposed model suggests three main aspects to reflect on:

a) the concept of individuality as a localization in space and time,

b) access to a dimension without space and time through the removal of sensory interaction,

c) the condition of humans as a filter for that dimension.

Our individuality is associated with a form of energy that represents the design of one's existence, or rather the functions that the body and mind can express. This energy realizes an existence which, in the interaction with the material world, is localized in space and time. When body and mind reduce their interaction with the outside world, the probability of accessing a dimension without time and space increases, and therefore so does access to information of the past, of the future, and of the whole universe. Dying therefore means accessing information embedded in a reality present everywhere and anytime.

When you access this reality without space and time, you acquire that information, but when you return to the material reality, this information is filtered by the human capacity to understand it.

What we heard made me reflect on two things:

Remote viewing and precognition have many aspects in common with NDE and reincarnation. These aspects can be nicely framed in the proposed model. That is, if we insert the stories and experiments in the model that provides access to a dimension without time and space, the different aspects can be explained through presently accepted scientific laws. The important thing is to accept the assumption that the human condition, when interacting with matter located in time and space, acts as a filter to, let us say, a wider reality.

The approaches we heard from the two experts, one based on physical laws and the other based on witness statements, are indeed compatible. The first implies that after death an individual loses identity and localization, joining a whole that exists anytime and everywhere. Identity has meaning only when localized and therefore filtered by a material condition. Reincarnation can be explained as a partial projection of the global dimension, or the life of a deceased, through the filter of the living individual that can interact in the present. The difference between reincarnation and NDE is the different coherence levels between the global information and the space-time localization of the filter.

Having said that, as a judge of this court, I declare that:

1) When we adopt a scientific method based on the measurement and verification of events, the evidence based on the stories is not sufficient to prove that an individual's consciousness continues beyond death. But it does suggest it.

2) Phenomena such as remote viewing and precognition have been shown to have a scientifically accepted validity, even if difficult to frame them into models unanimously recognized as valid.

3) The proposed model based on the concept of identity localized in space and time, and on access to a dimension without space and time, provides an excellent scientific context to reconcile interpretations from different communities and cultures.

Therefore, while not scientifically proven, I declare that we have evidence that supports the existence of an afterlife beyond reasonable doubt.

But the discussion is unfinished, and I call for action in the future.

We need to focus on aspects of the model in order to design experiments that can guide us to a deeper understanding of the links between the material and immaterial world. We need to put our efforts into reconciling the prejudices from the different scientific communities and open our minds to new discoveries.

Ideas and paradigms can be both useful and a hindrance, that is why it is very important to remember and reflect on their assumptions and suppositions. Reality in today’s physics cannot be contained in space-time and matter only. Old dualities integrate more and more to a complementary, synthetic, organic view. Emphasis is now on the interrelations of part and whole rather than parts only. More importantly a new kind of science emerges where the study of nature ought to be complemented by the very nature of our study, bringing self-reflectivity and consciousness back to its fundamental role in nature.

Adding a non-local dimension to the local one in consciousness studies will prove essential for eventually establishing a Science of Consciousness that will consider reference to wholeness as its most fundamental activity. This non-local dimension will have the same significance for the proposed new science as understanding quantum nonlocal reality had for physics today.

Dear friends, what I have learned in this trial is that maybe I am you, and you are me. We probably were the same thing in the past and probably we will be in the future. And that we see ourselves as different only because we are located now and in this place. Last but not least, I thank you all.

 

“To Be And Not To Be. This is The Answer: Consciousness Survives,” essay for the 2021 Bigelow essay contest submitted by Dr Peter Fenwick & Dr Pier-Francesco Moretti, Dr Vasileios Basios, and Martin Redfern. The complete essay with footnotes is available at https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php.

Nonlocality wholeness: Fenwick excerpt #18

 Chief Judge: I need more evidence and call for a second opinion.

Two entangled physicists, Dr Chaoticus and Herr Dr Dr Prof Quantiger along with Professor Lumina of the mathematical neuroscience department. Hoping to discuss the state of the art of their sciences on the topic they discover their need for a new kind of science altogether, if they want progress with a science of consciousness.

Chief Judge: Welcome, please take a seat and let us start without any ado, my question to you is does consciousness survive physical death?

(Drs Chaoticus and Quantidger miraculously occupy the same seat in superposition and start talking in a confusingly simultaneous way.)

Chief Judge: Please end your entangled state and let’s do things as classically as possible. I cannot follow a discourse based on quantum logic.

Dr. Dr. Chaoticus and Quantidger: Sorry, sorry, your honor, it is an occupational habit. ... Now, concerning your question, according to prevailing standards of materialistic orthodoxy, the brain is the seat of consciousness and the self, so if we write down the governing equations of the Hamiltonian for information and quantum entropy in a ...

Chief Judge: Please hold, I call Prof. Lumina for her testimony. I see her objection.

Prof. Lumina: Yes, your honor, in my field things are not so naively easy (Satel & Lilienfeld, 2015). No one has an equation for the brain. Moreover, the mainstream idea that the brain is the seat of consciousness or that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, an emergent property of neural activity, has been challenged from the early days of neuroscience. Severe brain injuries, brain deformations and more importantly veridical experiences that defy space and time as we know it (out of body experiences “OBEs”, cognition during coma, Near Death Experiences “NDEs”, "ADEs" and End of Life Experiences) point towards a more holistic view of consciousness. As we saw earlier, and the brain as the seat of consciousness has been challenged as a “mereological fallacy” recently (Bennett et al., 2009).

Chief Judge: By mereological fallacy, you mean? ...

Prof. Lumina: This fallacy is to assume that a whole is a mere addition of its constituting parts and that studying a part in detail can tell us all about the whole. In neuroscience, in the case of the brain/consciousness debate, this is an implicitly assumed hidden assumption that has been uncovered and highlighted by Bennett, Hacker and others (Bennett et al., 2009).

Chief Judge: So, you say that to ascribe thinking or consciousness to the brain when it applies to the whole animal is committing a form of the so-called “mereological fallacy”.

Prof. Lumina: Exactly, a holistic approach, on the contrary, would attribute consciousness not to an organ or behavior but to the animal as a whole.

Chief Judge: Then the question arises as to where to draw the line in the animal kingdom. Are our pets conscious? The lower mammals?

Dr. Dr. Chaoticus and Quantidger: Your honor, you cannot stop there. How about the animals without a brain or even nervous system, like Physarum and Amoebas? Some colleagues of ours have demonstrated problem solving and decision making, a clear sign of intelligence, in such complex systems (Schumann, 2020; Trewavas, 2015). So would it not be legitimate to attribute consciousness or pre-consciousness to all physical entities in the universe, as the many schools of panpsychism (Skrbina, 2005; Tarnas, 1993) try to? If so, do non-physical entities qualify too? If consciousness is nonlocalized where is it? Is it localized in a wider space, the whole animal? Is it spread out in a vast environmental and social container or its interactions? In the cosmos? Or is it really beyond space and time?

Chief Judge: Order, order, the task at hand is not to solve the consciousness conundrum but to access whether self, human-self, survives after death!

Prof. Lumina: Well, your honor, they do have a point. What they suggest can be a working hypothesis leading us to ask what the necessary conditions are for a localized consciousness such as ourselves, that ensure survival after physical death and disintegration.

Chief Judge: For that you need to elaborate on localization and locality - things that I was taking for granted seem elusive now.- ..Please go on. What does physics tells us about this?

Dr. Dr. Chaoticus and Quantidger: Yes, we know all about it! The nonlocal nature of quantum reality is the hottest topic these days (Bell & Gao, 2016; Bohm & Peat, 2010; Nadeau & Kafatos, 2001; Penrose, 1994). In order to address this problem, we need to discriminate between the different qualities of the meaning of nonlocal and nonlocality. First by locality we mean interaction and relation of spatial proximity. A step further we consider the global as distinct from the local, i.e. a whole consisting of parts that occupies a larger space than its parts. By classical nonlocality we mean that there exist correlations and relations that connect parts to the whole in larger space and time scales. But also we have quantum nonlocality where events and relations are not contained in space-time at all, they too are nonlocal but in addition they are non-spatial or non-temporal or both.

Chief Judge: Let’s see how to understand that. Say, I live far from my brother’s family and while I am asleep my niece is born which makes me an uncle instantaneously although I am not aware of the reality of this connection. Is this relation nonlocal in the classical or in the quantum sense?

Dr. Chaoticus: Classical! Dr. Quantidger: Quantum! (looking at each other intensely and nodding at once)

Dr. Dr. Chaoticus and Quantidger: Sorry your honour, we got far too disentangled for a moment. Well, actually this is not a physical relation, it is more legal or conceptual. But we know now that concepts are behaving more like quantum entities under the laws of quantum probabilities rather than classical entities that follow the Aristotelian, Boolean, logic (Fuchs & Khrennikov, 2021; Aerts et al., 2018).

Prof. Lumina: This is the new and fast developing field of ‘Quantum Cognition’, not to be confused with theories of ‘quantum mind’ or ‘quantum consciousness’. In addition to the meta-modern reality of quantum theories, new experimental facts of how concepts are constructed and interact reveal a striking similarity with quantum entities.

Dr. Dr. Chaoticus and Quantidger: Yes, exactly, we deal with a whole that is different from its parts, and which cannot uniquely or fully be deconstructed into independent parts. Both realms – quantum cognition and quantum physics – share the same mathematical and probabilistic structure and underlying logic. A non-Boolean, non-Aristotelian, logic where complementarity (“none-and-both”) rather than binary (“either-neither”) is the rule. Quantum Cognition provides a novel understanding of the roots of decision making, i.e. the role of hidden assumptions, and the context-based bias of otherwise unobserved, or sub-conscious, conditioning (Basios & Gunji, 2017). We see that clearly if we consider an orthocomplimentary lattice endowed with an associative ring algebra of ...

Chief Judge: Order! Order! Stop! No equations are allowed in my court. Argue with your ideas not your published results! Give me an idea of classical and quantum nonlocality.

Prof. Lumina: If I may, your honor, The global relations within a whole are the domain of investigations of complex systems and complexity science (Nicolis & Nicolis, 2012). We have established by now that the whole - classical or quantum - is more and different than its parts. We understand that there are emergent properties that can only be ascribed to the whole and not to the parts. Most statistical properties, like the temperature, are like that. Classical systems’ patterns that emerge during self-organization are another (Prigogine & Stengers, 2018). Nonlocal classical correlations are also the kind of relationship that two classical objects share when at a distance. The classical fields (electromagnetic, gravity etc) are such nonlocal entities. But also, for example, a pair of gloves, where one of them was forgotten at home and another taken on a trip, still share parity connection (one is still left-handed the other is still right-handed).

In the quantum world though, we experience another kind of nonlocality that does not depend on the spatial distance at all. In quantum reality the observed phenomenon and the act of its observation are intrinsically linked. The fact of quantum nonlocality is exemplified best in the phenomenon of entanglement (Gilder, 2008). Entangled pairs of quantum entities share observable qualities independently of their spacial relationship. But here, in contradistinction to the classical pair of gloves, their parity, left-right handedness, will be created instantaneously for both when either one of them is observed. Here we have a whole (the entangled pair) that is not only more and different than its parts but also indifferent to its spatial extension. John Bell has mathematically analyzed the statistics of entanglement and has proposed tests, the ‘Bell tests’ (or ‘Bell inequalities’) which quantify precisely the effects of nonlocal interactions (Bell & Gao, 2016; Gilder, 2008). So far they have been verified again and again. Entanglement constitutes a very well documented phenomenon and is a paradox for the other great contemporary theory of physics, that of General Relativity.

Dr. Dr. Chaoticus and Quantidger: And recently leading physicists suggest that entanglement is related to black-holes communicating via their singularities, like wormholes (Adam R. Brown & Susskind, 2018)

Chief Judge: Stop or you will be fined for contempt of court. We are talking about the Self here!

Dr. Dr. Chaoticus and Quantidger: Apologies your honor... Anyway, what we want to point out is that the real Self might not be located in space-time; it might be a pure state that coordinates its localized “avatar” the ever-changing but coherent spatial-temporal pattern of physico-biological entities that we comprehend as our localized self from ‘somewhere’, where there is no here or there.

Chief Judge: It seems to me that you either want to throw equations on my face or talk in an esoteric and apocryphally obscure language that only you understand.

Prof. Lumina: If I may your honor. Actually there are manifestations of nonlocal Consciousness. The novelist Aldous Huxley called nonlocal Mind “Mind at Large”. In often quoted “Doors of Perception” he writes:

“Mind at Large has to be funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle [...] of consciousness” (Huxley, 1954).

Russell Targ

It is exactly this 'Mind at Large', that is a non-temporal and nonlocal wholeness (Targ et al., 2002). Introducing –self– reflexivity we can approach consciousness research on a nonlocal level, in addition to the local one (Radin, 2009). Nonlocality of Mind then will complement our findings of which specific groups of neurons fire when we are in love, or when we solve equations. These firings don’t tell us much about why these neurons get aroused in the first place, or why they often fire in synchrony. Meaning, correlations and understanding are not fully inside space-time.

As Emilios Bouratinos puts it: “Mind then understands because it is able to stand under the things it is preoccupied with, while actually observing them from above. The non-local components of reality illumine their local manifestations” (Bouratinos, 2018).

From the perspective of local interactions we tend to be astonished how nonlocal connections arise in a world of separate entities and how such evidence can even be possible. We can change perspective and along with quantum theorist David Bohm (the one who inspired John Bell to come up with his tests) we can ask “since everything in the world is interconnected, how come everything looks so separate?” Bohm’s theory accounts for many conceived anomalies such as the influence of mind over matter (Bohm & Peat, 2010). Evidence on that and the possibility of a nonlocal consciousness operating, remotely, in the physical world has been accumulating ever since Bohm asked such questions.

Chief Judge: You say it has been accumulated but I see very little of this evidence reported in the mainstream literature. I can sense that you are using an argument that would ascribe the separate self as a local instance of some cosmic nonlocal higher Self. Is that so?

Prof. Lumina: Indeed, your honor, but first let me answer your hesitation with an analogy. You probably know about the origin of the “Whorfian hypothesis” (Hunt & Agnoli, 1991). You see in Liberia , the aborigine tribe of ‘the Bassa’ have only two words for their ‘colors’, they comprehend and categorize all objects as, say, light or dark. These people cannot recognize any other color; although physiologically they do not suffer from color blindness! The physical filter is the same as ours yet their mental filter is not. And modern anthropology testifies to this with a plethora of other examples. Is their reality different?

Like the Bassa tribe we cannot see what is beyond our conceptual radar although evidence is shining clear. It took almost half a century for the quantum physicists’ tribe to accept nonlocality as a working hypothesis and test it. Maybe, hopefully, it will take less to observe the nonlocality of consciousness.

Dr. Dr. Chaoticus and Quantidger: Yes! To put it in another way in defense of our esteemed colleague: The relation between symbolic language and the dynamics of thinking is still problematic and at this stage the need to consider context, meaning, attention, focus, and the role of emotions and feelings is becoming obvious. A materialistic-reductionist perspective tries to abolish all such complex interplay as mere illusion, trickery, and/or fallacies of judgement. But the bilateral feedback between reality and the construction of reality takes a central place in our ‘meta-modern’ contemporary physics. This relation cannot be dismissed simply attributing it to the idols of group-thinking, needing to conform to the norm, sensory illusion or cognitive bias. It is a fundamental interplay between the subjective and objective that calls for an expanded view of both

Looking at data with the wrong paradigm we arrive at paradoxes yet we can never separate data from context construction, and we can never observe raw, unconceptualized, content. As Isabelle Stengers observes, and quoted in (Bouratinos, 2018):

“for finite knowledge, there will always be a gap between what comes into existence and what can be defined.”

It might seem contradictory but it follows that reality is on a par with Leibniz’s “Principle of Sufficient Reason” which stipulates that the Universe embodies the necessary and sufficient conditions for anything to be as it is, including its logic. That’s why pushing ahead with a Self-Reflective Interdisciplinary Science of Consciousness needn’t wait for the full working out of its theoretical tenets, justifications, and specific implications ("Galileo Commission Report", 2019). It’s 100% OK if we still struggle with an uncertain emerging picture of reality. This is preferable to an illusory certainty.

Chief Judge: Hmm we are reaching the end of this session and your evidence points to deeper ontological and epistemological considerations. You made a crack to my reality filter for sure. Let’s see if light will shine through on our case.

Dr. Dr. Chaoticus and Quantidger: Right! That’s the key here Light! The possibility that Self is a coherent indestructible quantum-like Monad, something like a superposition of pure states of light-like q-bits, (Kauffman & Radin, 2021; D’Ariano & Faggin, 2020) can be traced if we could launch a project that would just probe the random event field anomalous cross-correlations (Nelson, 1998; Nelson, 2019) in a framework of ...

Chief Judge: Order! Order! Session closed! Session closed! Go back to your entangled state, Dr. Dr. Chaoticus and Quantidger!

 

“To Be And Not To Be. This is The Answer: Consciousness Survives,” essay for the 2021 Bigelow essay contest submitted by Dr Peter Fenwick & Dr Pier-Francesco Moretti, Dr Vasileios Basios, and Martin Redfern. The complete essay with footnotes is available at https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php.

A scientific hypothesis: Fenwick excerpt #17

Counsel for the Afterlife:

In this session we ask you to consider possible mechanisms that could explain the phenomena that we have heard from our witnesses. We call again Dr Pier-Francesco Moretti to submit his analysis:

Dr Moretti:

Dear colleagues, I focused my previous intervention on the apparent commonalities to extract a possible interpretation in terms of science we rely on.

I will therefore describe a model that is supported by contemporary science that we are now comfortable to accept in many other contexts.

The three main aspects I ask you to have always in mind are those reported by those who were close to death, but returned to life: the presence of light, the absence of time and the detachment from the body.

I first need to describe some scientific concepts:

First of all: “light”.

Light can be represented classically as a wave of the electromagnetic field. A wave can be also interpreted as a probability distribution in standard quantum physics. In the case of light, as a quantum entity, there is a probability that it can exist throughout the entirety of space. It is everywhere as long as it does not interact with matter. It can also be represented as a massless particle (photon). A photon has a constant speed, independent of reference systems, and that is the maximum allowed (the speed of light). Any particle with mass can only travel with a speed less than that of light.

To measure velocity, we need two measurements in space, and the time it takes to cover the distance between them. But in a reference system that travels faster than light, time in Einstein's formula, becomes a negative number: something must be wrong or time must become something different, at least in its classical mathematical description (Einstein & Lawson, 2001). Time is in fact not an absolute quantity, that is, it depends on the reference system. It scrolls differently depending on the speed: the higher the speed, the slower the passage of time. In principle, if an identity that is linked to a body disconnects from its mass and starts traveling at the speed of light for a certain time, if it were to reconnect with the mass, would perceive its luminous travel as instantaneous. This is what a person would experience if their mind were to disconnect from their body and then rematerialize back.

In addition to light (i.e., photons), every microscopic particle with mass can also be described as a wave, that is, in principle, could be present everywhere. This characteristic of vagueness in spatial localization is lost when it interacts with the environment. There are two interesting quantum effects that demonstrate this vagueness in localization: tunneling (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2021) and entanglement (Bub, 2020).

Tunneling is what allows a particle with mass to overcome an energy-potential barrier that classically would prohibit it. In reality it is not prohibited! But the probability that the particle can cross the barrier is low. It is the principle on which tunnel effect microscopes and other electronic devices are based (Aharonov & Rohrlich, 2005). When dealing with macroscopic bodies, the probability that all the atoms can jump together at the same time becomes truly zero. The more of them that are bound together, the more they are condemned to stay in a certain place.

Entanglement is a theoretical phenomenon that, in experiments to date, is mostly confined to microscopic particles, although larger and larger objects are being detected in entangled states (Abbott & et al, 2009; McConnell et al., 2015). Suppose that two particles are generated simultaneously and that there is a property that binds them to obey a certain law, e.g., a pair of photons or electrons sharing energy, momentum and/or spin. If we are able to separate them in space and manage not to make them interact with the external environment, they would have a description of their existence through a common wave-function, a probability wave, precisely because they were generated together. If one of the two, no matter how far away from the other, interacts with the environment, the property that binds them would remain valid and the other particle would obey, regardless of their mutual distance. This means that something would instantly happen to the other particle, with the correlation traveling instantaneously (Gilder, 2008).

If we now reflect on the concept of time, what if time also could be described as a wave or equivalently as a quantum operator? (Prigogine, 1982). Or what if time was not localized in an instant but depended on interaction? (Barbour, 2001) We would no longer have a particle moving in time, but we would have a number of possible combinations between past and future and different places. The spatial and the temporal positions would mostly depend on the fact that many particles, all “connected” together, interact with other masses (Barbour, 2001).

This means that our body cannot cross to the other side of a barrier of the space-time field represented by the speed of light. But we can imagine it, through thought.

All these reflections suggest that the condition of mass-entity blocks us from accessing the reality beyond space and time.

What does this block consist of and how is it overcome?

We are not speaking now about the speed of light, but anything that prevents a body from accessing another dimension with no localization in space and time.

Let's go back for a moment to the fact that messages between material bodies cannot travel faster than light in space-time, unless the bodies have an intrinsic link and can pass as correlations through entanglement. And let's think of a boat that sails in the middle of the sea. Ripples move ahead of the boat if its speed is lower than that of the propagation of sound in the water. When the speed exceeds it, we would see the trail behind us but no ripples ahead. This means that we are going faster than information can be transmitted. So, nothing ahead of us could understand that we are coming while we would only affect what's behind us. In practice, we see the past that we have changed but we do not see the future that we are about to change. This happens if we're only seeing the surface of the sea. If we raised our eyes from the surface of the water, however, we would see what lies ahead of us.

It all depends on how we arrange ourselves on the boat; that is, if we see the surface of the water, if we look forward or behind, or if we stand up in the bow. What is it that allows us to change our viewpoint?

Let's now assume the existence of entities with mass not localized in space and not localized in time, as an extreme speculation. When they interact with the environment, they materialize in a position in space and time. But what defines existence?

Let's now insert a definition, as often happens in the scientific field, because we need some initial rules to be able to proceed with the argument.

We define identity as the property of a series of connections between particles having mass that allows a living being to operate in the material world in order intentionally to modify it.

Therefore, identity is not a material object, defined by culture or humans, and positioned in a measurable place. We speak instead of living beings, capable of acting on the material world and capable of free will.

So how is identity achieved? Let us continue our speculation.

We have many material particles that are linked together through entanglement. When a living organism is generated, the genetic code as an initial algorithm begins its construction of the "identity" through interaction with the environment. The particles, with mass and therefore localized, have a link between them that defines their identity. This bond is described by a waveform integrated between all the particles, as is the case for entanglement. This bond has an energy and correlations that characterize its configuration and that we will call “identity energy”. Identity therefore could be described by a ‘waveform’ or via some wave function. Its binding energy and correlations do not have a material existence. In principle, this identity cannot be measured directly through tools or models developed for the material world. We can only detect and measure the interaction of it with the external world.

The first consequence of this model is that there is matter with "meaning". A living organism therefore has a sort of “network" of energy and correlations that establishes its identity as a concept of creation and invention, linked to the ability to influence the space-time distribution of mass through a massless quantity.

We therefore assume that there is a sort of energy that describes the order in matter, such as the energy that is needed to tie many tree trunks together to make a raft and therefore change its function. It is an energy that transforms the distribution of logs in space from pieces of wood into a different meaning linked to a goal. It is not the energy that we used to cut the logs, transport them and tie them, but a form of energy that describes the design and the order in which they were arranged in order to change their purpose. If we had connected the logs for the raft in a different way, we would have created a hut for example. In classical philosophy’s terms that would be the efficient and final cause, responsible for meaning and agency, ostracized by science since Galileo’s times (Basios, 2005; Goff, 2019).

Now suppose that living beings have this order among their material components. It is an order that we have currently assigned to the genetic code as an algorithm capable of creating from a few constituent blocks a whole variety of living beings in turn capable of interacting with the environment and its resources, reproducing and evolving the algorithm so that it can survive changes that would otherwise be fatal.

In the proposed model, the name represents the identity as the concept associated with the energy of the structure that binds the material components so that they take on a meaning. Identity addresses the meaning. It can be associated with an energy, which is currently not measurable and describes its design and entelechy.

Now I move to the NDEs, meditation, premonition, remote vision, hypnosis, etc.

Our atoms are structured together to enable our body, and the whole system that composes it, including the brain, contribute to having self-awareness, thinking and interacting with the outside world. The external material world exists for us in a certain place and time. The internal world, on the other hand, can range. We have assumed this ordering structure of matter is associated with a form of energy that establishes the role, function, or meaning of the design.

When the interaction with the external environment is high, that is, our senses and cognitive system are active in picking up external signals and processing them, we are fully present and localized. When the coordination energy of interactions with the environment decreases, measured for example by reducing the activity of the brain default network, our cognitive capacity expands (Lin et al., 2017).

To put it another way: if we lose our ‘name’, or matter-based identity, we are able to access a realm that is no longer dominated by space-time variables. Our "part" accesses the "whole". In practice, the less we know, in the sense of acquiring details, the more we know, in a similar way with which, in quantum mechanics, we reduce (or ‘collapse’) the extent of possible states when we observe (von Neumann, 1955).

As we lose our identity embedded in matter, we access dimensions without and beyond space and time, where there is no sequence of events, there is no definition of speed and there is no measurement of space and/or time. We have access to more, or even all, imaginable information. When we return to ourselves, we regain the ability to interact through the senses and restore our identity and therefore the human filters of knowledge.

We can simply represent symbolically these material and immaterial realms through the projections (or shadows) of an object on different planes (Figure 4 on the left) signifying the application of different observation/description-filters to the object (Kostmo, 2010).

The death of a living being translates as the lack of the possibility of re-establishing the binding energy and correlation, that makes the material structure localized in time and space. Death results in the impossibility of interacting with the material world “directly”, but of being able to interact with the immaterial one instead.

There is therefore always a link between the material and the immaterial dimensions at every moment (Bohm & Hiley, 1995; Nadeau & Kafatos, 2001). What we consider identities associated with our bodies are the projections in one time and one place of a wider simultaneous and ubiquitous unity.

Dear colleagues, the model I just proposed can interpret most of the phenomena within state-of-the-art science. Unfortunately, there is no mathematical formulation of how to describe the link between them, if not conceptually as I did, although very recently there is some preparatory activity on this front (D’Ariano & Faggin, 2020; Faggin, 2021; Kauffman & Radin, 2021).

The Court will adjourn.

Figures 1, 2, and 3 in the original text have been omitted.

 

“To Be And Not To Be. This is The Answer: Consciousness Survives,” essay for the 2021 Bigelow essay contest submitted by Dr Peter Fenwick & Dr Pier-Francesco Moretti, Dr Vasileios Basios, and Martin Redfern. The complete essay with footnotes is available at https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php.

Creating a theory: Fenwick excerpt #16

Advocate for the Afterlife:

In the preceding sessions we have heard a brief summary of the substantial evidence that some aspect of consciousness appears to survive after bodily death. But to put it on firm ground, we need a theory to interpret this evidence. For this session we would like to call physicist Dr Pier-Francesco Moretti:

Dr Moretti:

Dear panel of esteemed Judges,

Interpretation of the facts depends on the assumptions we make and on the context in which we are embedded. Let me start with an example.

“Yesterday, my neighbors told me that a donkey was flying in the sky".

Is it true that a donkey flew yesterday? Did they really see it? Can a donkey fly?

As a scientist, I would start from the last question and ask myself if I can reproduce the phenomenon in any experiment. If not, or if any experiment does not confirm the hypothesis, I would look for the presence of any objective detection of the event, preferably independent from human cognitive bias. Based on a backward analysis, I would focus on what motivated the neighbors to report a flying donkey. Was it a donkey? Was it really flying or an optical effect?

Most of the evidence for the survival of consciousness is in the form of “reports”, that is “stories” and these stories are told by humans.

NDEs and reincarnation are reported by people of all ages, ethical groups, religions, cultures and in different historical periods. Many report passing through a tunnel of light and meeting deceased relatives. Others report that they were unable to sequence their memories of the experience, and that they probably organized the story according to some logic. Often they report having seen their own bodies on the ground while flying above.

I immediately note that these are personal stories, strongly influenced by the fears and desires of the individuals who reported them. However, statistically speaking, I have to admit that, although these stories are strange, their recurrence is high and the commonalities can hide something that we are not yet able to explain or even is incompatible with our current scientific models. What we do not understand can still exist!

In many cases, these accounts were reported by patients who were well monitored in equipped hospital rooms, as Peter Fenwick mentioned earlier. Patients reported real events while their brain functions were diagnosed as absent and vital functions were assisted by machines.

To make the story short, whether they were alone or in a credible medical context, people reported: the presence of light in different forms (tunnels, presences, lighting), externalization from the body and difficulty in assigning a duration and temporal sequence to the event.

But any conclusions will still be based on stories reported by humans. No “controlled” experiment has demonstrated that there is a link between the identity of a dead individual and a measurable, verifiable presence as a spirit in our world.

Other phenomena can take advantage of experiments in controlled conditions, where we can extract similar features to those reported during NDEs. These phenomena are called “paranormal”, or, using better term, “anomalous” (Rao, & Palmer, 1987), and tend to be ignored or denied by “Western hard science”, of course what is paranormal in one era might well be perfectly normal in another, like the radioactivity and X-rays (Horgan, 2012; Durrani, 2000).

We are talking about premonition and remote viewing. Cases of these can be supported by scientifically valid experiments (Targ et al., 2002; Jessica Utts, 1991).

Premonition means accessing information from the future. Remote viewing means perceiving at a distance, far into space and beyond the usual sensing.

Both involve accessing knowledge of space and time not linked to localization in the present and in the current place (Marwaha & May, 2015). With breathing techniques (Trivellato, 2017) and concentration or intake of substances (Sheldrake et al., 2001), some are able to trigger this type of phenomena, including detachment from the body,

The study of the functioning of the brain has seen remarkable developments in recent decades. During states of absence of consciousness, a decrease in activity of the so-called brain default network is usually observed (Raichle, 2015; DiNicola & Buckner, 2019). The default network is the network of connections that is activated when the brain interacts and acquires data from the external environment. It is the system that shows the presence of interaction and analysis of the brain through the senses. When the brain, voluntarily or not, “stops” receiving signals from the outside or processing them, it is unable to place itself at that moment and in that place. In practice, it loses its space-time localization.

The brain default network therefore seems to provide a measure of our state of self-consciousness located in time and space.

Here are the aspects that are "reported" by people who have survived experiences that we can call near-death or through different techniques, remembering that they refer to stories and that experimental verification is not currently possible for any of these:

1. detachment from the body, or a view of space mainly from above.

2. difficulty in assigning duration and temporal sequence to events.

3. presence of light.

Then let's add the salient ones that are acquired in scientifically validated experiments:

4. during states of unconsciousness or deep relaxation, the brain default network reduces its activity as cited in (Lee et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2017). That network is responsible for receiving and analyzing external inputs detected through the senses.

5. premonition and remote vision are phenomena that allow access to non-localized information in space and time. Many of these phenomena occur in unconscious or semi-conscious states (Lehmann et al., 2001).

We should recognize that any information we collect and analyze is filtered by the fact that it is reported by humans, but humans are also the ones who have built physical laws, models and concepts. So, we have a bias when trying to explain the unexplainable, and our vision is not independent of our condition as humans, see also (Bouratinos, 2018). Nothing described by individuals from their own mental experiences can be scientifically verified through external measures, apart from measuring the activity in the brain.

Let us therefore reflect on the stories and extract the aspects that do seem to be independent of the human condition.

Let us start from the detachment from the body or a vision of the place from above. Suppose we are in a condition where space no longer exists, or in a dimension where the whole universe is not described in a set of separate objects but in its overall state. What situation in life comes to mind that can make us imagine losing the ability to distinguish objects? Probably a view from above. On the edge of a cliff, over the top of a mountain, on a plane. When we observe from above, we have the sensation of grasping the entirety of the space and losing that of the detail. We are looking at the whole as if we were external to it. Clearly, to a human, "witnessing" the whole of space suggests a vision from above.

We come to another point: difficulties in assigning duration and temporal sequence to events.

If the first point suggested a condition without a localization in space, this suggests a similar condition but without a localization in time. Failing to arrange memories according to a time-line implies that their description occurred later in a logical way and based on personal, human experience. The same thing applies to the assignment of duration, which in the absence of precise time references is deduced from comparison with events already experienced.

We can deduce that we are dealing with stories that identify a situation where space and time are in any case distorted, and probably absent (Saniga, 2005).

Then we have the presence of light.

Are we sure that it is light as we perceive it? Light as that perceived illuminating books in the dark? The book exists, but does the light exist or is this a concept we use to describe the interaction of our senses with the external material world?

When we hear of visions of angels dressed in white, halos, dark tunnels that lead to a passage towards a reality illuminated by a blinding light at the exit: these are all representations of light that we are used to, assisting both with our senses and through our education. Nobody reports the presence of light as a photoelectric effect or with phenomena other than their own experience. Furthermore, most of the time the perception of light is identified in white or in any case without the distinction of colors. White is the result of all colors emitted simultaneously.

So white light represents the concept of light.

Light is indeed structured within the concept of space and time, according to Einstein's theory. The intrinsic characteristic of the distribution of space and time is the universal constant equal to the speed of light, constant and independent of any reference system. It is an intrinsic feature. We can address a characteristic to the light, or rather its speed, as a number that identifies the presence of all space and all time. The speed of light separates the space-time continuum between whatever has mass and what does not. Whatever can be measured and whatever not, for humans living at speeds lower than that of light, light represents the boundary between a world with defined space and time, filled with localized mass, and “something else”. This something else, however, should not have space and time or massive objects, unless they have different laws from those we know.

One thing seems plausible: the stories of near-death experiences and some paranormal phenomena suggest that they can be framed as the access to a dimension without space and time, and light signals the presence of the boundary towards that dimension (Saniga, 2005; Fenwick et al., 2018; Fenwick, 2019).

In summary, therefore, suppose we are unconscious, and our brain has stopped interacting with the external physical world. Let's suppose that our ego, consciousness or whatever you want to call it, has access to a dimension without space and time, thus being able to grasp all the information of the past, future and wherever they are. When we become conscious again, what would we, as humans, say?

Could we say that we have seen something that we personally have never had anything to do with? Could we say that we have seen or perceived something outside the capabilities of a Human?

No, we would describe something that we can understand and relate to. In other words, we would filter it through a syntax linked to our physical and historical condition. We would report any information as a function of past and human experiences.

So, the reported stories pass through two consecutive filters: 1) consists of the combination of 1a) the sensory/cognitive capacity of human beings as evolved animals in a competitive environment and 1b) the individual cultural/educational background that allows the interpretation of facts. 2) consists of the methodology and cultural contexts that frame any identification and interpretation of facts (Bouratinos, 2018).

This reflection is by no means innovative, but it has to become our lens to investigate the facts.

By adopting a scientific methodology based on verification of facts and measurements acquired by instruments, we cannot assume the reports from humans as evidence for the existence of an “afterlife”. This is definitely true when we deal with NDEs and reincarnation. For other phenomena as premonition and remote viewing, I admit they can be accepted as evidence of “something else”, but there is no direct link with “afterlife”. I do think most of us are therefore influenced by a confirmation bias and we should scout for a possible model that can explain these phenomena bearing in mind self-reflection and openness.

 

“To Be And Not To Be. This is The Answer: Consciousness Survives,” essay for the 2021 Bigelow essay contest submitted by Dr Peter Fenwick & Dr Pier-Francesco Moretti, Dr Vasileios Basios, and Martin Redfern. The complete essay with footnotes is available at https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php.