1

Where Are You?

When I stand before you, talking to you, am I talking to the skin covering your face?† Humans shed and re-grow outer skin cells about every 27 days, making almost 1,000 new skins in a lifetime.† Your skin is just a disposable covering and by the time I finish saying a sentence to you, some of it is gone.

Each day about 50 billion cells in the body are replaced, resulting in a new body each year. The body is just temporary.† It can't be who you are.† Every second, 500,000 of your body cells die and are replaced, so we'll have to keep this conversation shortómuch of you will be gone before we finish!

Who am I talking to when I speak to you?† It's certainly not your brain.† That's just a collection of fat and protein made of 85% water squeezed into the dark enclosure of your skull.† Around 50,000 to 100,000 brain cells die each day, so if some of them had today's messages, no wonder you keep losing track of what your spouse tells you.

You are not your body.† The body changes constantly.† The body you had at age 10 when you could run like a rabbit was a different body than you have at age 70 when you shuffle like a turtle, and the molecules in it have been replaced 60 times!† Last year's body is different from this year's body.† The body is just flesh and bone, made of the same atoms as a bowl of warm Irish stew.† That's not you.

So, when you talk to me, you'll insist you're not talking to any part of my body, or even the tofu-like mush inside my skull.† You're talking to me.† You know implicitly that you and I are above and aside from the skin and the brain.†

You arenít the body.† Youíre the mind that is greater than the body, and that means youíre greater than the brain.† So if your mind is greater than the brain, where are you?† This chapter explains where.

Weíll start by correcting a common misconception.† You likely have the belief that science knows your mind is in the three to five pounds of fat and protein compressed inside your skull.† Thatís what you were taught in school.

But the fact is that neuroscience canít explain how people have a conscious experience, where the mind is, what memories are, or where memories are stored.† That's pretty remarkable considering that the brain has been carefully mapped using CTs, MRIs, PETs, and EEGs to find out which parts of the brain are active when a person is performing activities.† In spite of all the brain mapping thatís been done, they canít locate the mind and they canít find memories.

Many neuroscientists are also saying that even if someone could locate mind and memories in the brain, that still wouldn't explain who has the conscious thought.† In other words, yes there's a thought, but who is thinking?† Who requested the thought?† Yes, the brain shows activity when there's a thought, but what caused the brain to show activity?† How does a human being have a conscious experience?

Thatís known as the "problem of consciousness" or the "hard problem," and all neuroscientists acknowledge it.† They canít find a mind or memories in the brain and they don't know how the brain creates the mind.† Statements by a sampling of neuroscientists illustrating this problem follow. Here and elsewhere in this book, cited writers sometimes use "consciousness" to refer to the mind.† I usually use "mind" because that is the common term we all use to refer to the inner part of us that thinks, feels, and decides to act.†

Stephan Patt of the Institute of Pathology at Friedrich Schiller University in Germany summarized the research on the mind and the brain:

Nevertheless all these experiments and descriptions of brain activation processes do not explain how neural activity is the cause for consciousness. Likewise, all attempts which have been undertaken to specify the neurological mechanisms of consciousness in terms of neurobiological, information processing and even social theories of consciousness have failed to prove this causal relationship.1

Sir John Maddox, former editor-in-chief of the renowned journal Nature, summed up our knowledge of consciousness in the December 1999 issue of Scientific American:

Nobody understands how decisions are made or how imagination is set free. What consciousness consists of, or how it should be defined, is equally puzzling.† Despite the marvelous success of neuroscience in the past century, we seem as far from understanding cognitive processes as we were a century ago.2

Stuart Hameroff, MD, a renowned researcher in neuroscience in the Department of Anesthesiology, Arizona Health Sciences Center, wrote,

Consciousness defines our existence and reality. But how does the brain generate thoughts and feelings? Most explanations portray the brain as a computer, with nerve cells ("neurons") and their synaptic connections acting as simple switches, or "bits" which interact in complex ways. In this view consciousness is said to "emerge" as a novel property of complex interactions among neurons, as hurricanes and candle flames emerge from complex interactions among gas and dust molecules. However this approach fails to explain why we have feelings and awareness, an "inner life." So we don't know how the brain produces consciousness.3

David Presti, Ph.D., Professor of Neurobiology, University of California-Berkeley, wrote that

Despite the awesome achievements of 20th-century neuroscience in increasing our knowledge about the workings of the human brain, little progress has been made in the scientific understanding of mental phenomena.4

David J. Chalmers, Ph.D., Director of the Centre for Consciousness at the Australian National University, wrote in Scientific American,

Consciousness, the subjective experience of an inner self, could be a phenomenon forever beyond the reach of neuroscience. Even a detailed knowledge of the brain's workings and the neural correlates of consciousness may fail to explain how or why human beings have self-aware minds.5

Other researchers report that efforts to find the locations of memories in the brain have proven to be unsuccessful.† Karl Lashley, a renowned psychologist and researcher in the field of learning and memory, failed during his entire career to find the location of memory in the brain.† It prompted him to write, "Memory ought to be impossible, yet it happens." 6

Brian Boycott, a biologist specializing in the study of memory, summarized the inability to find memory in any specific location in the brain: "Memory seems to be both everywhere and nowhere in particular in the brain."7

Wilder Penfield was able to stimulate the brain to produce small segments of memories,8 and neurosurgeons at the Toronto Western Hospital using electrodes have stimulated the brain to recall a scene from decades before in the patient's memory.9 However, where the memories are stored, how the mind can intend to recall a memory, and how memories are archived are not known.

Science simply doesnít know how the mind is produced or where itís located, even though the brain has been carefully studied and mapped.† That has led to science starting to look elsewhere for the mind.

Many Scientists Are Suggesting Your Mind Is Not in Your Brain

Because scientists canít find the mind in the brain, many are beginning to suggest that the mind isnít in the brain at all.

Dr. Sam Parnia, a physician from Southampton General Hospital in England, has been studying near-death experiences among his patients.† The results were published in the February 2001 issue of the journal Resuscitation and presented to a gathering of scientists at the California Institute of Technology in June 2001.† Following is a segment of an interview he gave to the Reuters news service:

"The brain function these [near-death] patients were found to have while unconscious is commonly believed to be incapable of sustaining lucid thought processes or allowing lasting memories to form," Parnia saidópointing to the fact that nobody fully grasps how the brain generates thoughts.

"The brain itself is made up of cells, like all the body's organs, and is not really capable of producing the subjective phenomenon of thought that people have," he said."10

Simon Berkovich, Professor of Engineering and Applied Science in the Department of Computer Science of the George Washington wrote,

The brain is merely a transmitter and receiver of information, but not the main place for storage or processing of information (i.e., memories)."11

Stanislav Grof, MD, Ph.D., Freudian psychoanalyst, assistant professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Chief of Psychiatric Research at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, summarized his conclusion after his lifelong study of the mind and the brain:

My first idea was that it [consciousness] has to be hard-wired in the brain. I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out how something like that is possible. Today, I came to the conclusion that it is not coming from the brain. In that sense, it supports what Aldous Huxley believed after he had some powerful psychedelic experiences and was trying to link them to the brain. He came to the conclusion that maybe the brain acts as a kind of reducing valve that actually protects us from too much cosmic input. . . . I don't think you can locate the source of consciousness. I am quite sure it is not in the brain―not inside of the skull. . . . It actually, according to my experience, would lie beyond time and space, so it is not localizable. You actually come to the source of consciousness when you dissolve any categories that imply separation, individuality, time, space and so on. You just experience it as a presence.12

The same conclusion was reached independently by other brain specialists.† Sir John Eccles, internationally recognized brain researcher whose work has had a major influence on brain research, concluded

. . . that the mind is a separate entity from the brain, and that mental processes cannot be reduced to neurochemical brain processes, but on the contrary direct them. And . . . a mind may conceivably exist without a brain.13

Sir Cyril Burt, educational psychologist renowned for his studies on the effects of heredity on intelligence, wrote in his book, The Gifted Child,

The brain is not an organ that generates consciousness, but rather an instrument evolved to transmit and limit the processes of consciousness and of conscious attention so as to restrict them to those aspects of the material environment which at any moment are crucial for the terrestrial success of the individual. In that case such phenomena as telepathy and clairvoyance would be merely instances in which some of the limitations were removed. 14

Another brain specialist, Wilder Penfield, was a ground-breaking neuroscientist and physician.† While performing surgery on patients, he noticed that stimulating a part of the brain cortex could cause the patient to recall a memory.† However, while recalling the memory, the personís conscious awareness was still active, aside from the memory, and no stimulation of any part of the brain could cause any of the actions we associate with the mind: beliefs, problem solving, decisions, or any of the other activities that happen when a person is "thinking."† The mind activities went on even when he was stimulating the brain cortex, and were completely unaffected by any stimulation he applied to the brain.†

He could stimulate small segments of memories, but he couldnít locate the mind inside the brain.

He summed up the conclusions he formed on the basis of these experiments:

. . . none of the actions that we attribute to the mind has been initiated by electrode stimulation or epileptic discharge. If there were a mechanism in the brain that could do what the mind does, one might expect that the mechanism would betray its presence in a convincing manner by some better evidence of epileptic or electrode activation.

The mind, he writes, "makes its impact on the brain" but isnít in the brain.15

Neuroscientists canít tell us how we have a conscious experience, where the mind is.† Some scientists have come to the conclusion that perhaps the mind isn't in the brain at all.†

Thatís why we know weíre not speaking to the body when we speak to one another, and why we know the mind is greater than and aside from the body.† The remainder of this chapter contains evidence demonstrating that the scientists coming to that conclusion are correct: your mind is not inside your brain.

Pim van Lommel is a cardiologist and author of an article in the medical journal, The Lancet (December 2001).† His conclusions were summarized by Tim Touber:

Van Lommel contends that the brain does not produce consciousness or store memories. He points out that American computer science expert Simon Berkovich and Dutch brain researcher Herms Romijn, working independently of one another, came to the same conclusion: that it is impossible for the brain to store everything you think and experience in your life. This would require a processing speed of 1024 bits per second. Simply watching an hour of television would already be too much for our brains. "If you want to store that amount of informationóalong with the associative thoughts producedóyour brain would be pretty much full," Van Lommel says. "Anatomically and functionally, it is simply impossible for the brain to have this level of speed."16

While small segments or individual scenes of memories can be re-experienced when the brain is stimulated,17,18 where those memories are stored is not known, and it seems apparent that the brain doesn't have the capacity to hold them.† The stimulation brings segments of memories and scenes to mind, but their source is a mystery to neuroscientists.

Not only does the brain not have the capacity to hold the memories, but many brain cells die and are replaced every second of our lives.† For the memories to remain over 50 or 60 years, the brain cells would have to remain the same ones that were there when the memories were created, but that doesnít happen since theyíre replaced by new brain cells †regularly.† Dean Radin, Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, professor at Sonoma State University, and Distinguished Consulting Faculty member at Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center, explains this further indication that memories couldnít remain stored in the brain:

Consider a profound mystery in biology that is not accounted for by classical assumptions: The average neuron consists of about 80 percent water and about 100,000 molecules.† The brain contains about 10 billion cells, hence about 1015 molecules.† Each nerve cell in the brain receives an average of 10,000 connections from other brain cells, and the molecules within each cell are renewed about 10,000 times in a lifetime.† We lose about 1,000 cells a day, so the total brain cell population is decimated by about 10 million cells, losing in the process some 100 billion cross-linkages. 19

Some sources today estimate that from 50,00020 to 100,00021 brain cells die each day. †In spite of the loss of brain cells and the fact that the molecules within each brain cell are renewed about 10,000 times in a lifetime, memories from our childhood of many places weíve visited can be recalled in great detail.† People in old age report flashbacks of memories having remarkable clarity that they havenít recalled for decades.†

Dean Radin quotes Paul A. Weiss, of Viennaís Institute of Experimental Biology, a pioneer in biology research, about the fact that memories remain intact in spite of the loss of brain cells and replacement of molecules in brain cells:

And yet, despite that ceaseless change of detail in that vast population of elements, our basic patterns of behavior, our memories, our sense of integral existence as an individual, have retained their unitary continuity of pattern.22

That fact is another indication that memories arenít stored in brain cells.

Missing Large Parts of the Brain Doesnít Affect Memory.

People missing half their brain after a surgery function almost perfectly normally, suggesting that the mind must be functioning outside of the brain.† The procedure, called a hemispherectomy, removes half of the brain from the patientís head.† The operation has been performed hundreds of times for disorders that canít be controlled using any other treatments.† After half of the brain has been removed, the patients retain their personalities and memories. 23† In fact, a study of children who had half of their brains removed found they often were able to perform even better in their school work.24

A number of instances have been recorded in which a normally functioning person was found as an adult to have virtually no brain.† The brain wasnít necessary to normal functioning or memory.† This account is from a July 19, 2007, story on Reuters:

A man with an unusually tiny brain managed to live an entirely normal life despite his condition caused by a fluid buildup in his skull, French researchers reported on Thursday.

Scans of the 44-year-old manís brain showed that a huge fluid-filled chamber called a ventricle took up most of the room in his skull, leaving little more than a thin sheet of actual brain tissue.

"He was a married father of two children, and worked as a civil servant," Dr. Lionel Feuillet and colleagues at the Universite de la Mediterranee in Marseille wrote in a letter to the Lancet medical journal. . . . "What I find amazing to this day is how the brain can deal with something which you think should not be compatible with life," commented Dr. Max Muenke, a pediatric brain defect specialist at the National Human Genome Research Institute.25

That provides evidence for the suggestion that the mind isnít in the brain.† Mind and memory function perfectly well when half the brain is removed or the brain doesn't develop fully.

There is a community of the spirit.
Join it, and feel the delightÖ.
Close both eyes
To see with the other eye.

- Jelaluddin Rumi (Muslim Sufi mystic)

If we are aside from and greater than the body, then you'd think we could learn some things about the world without using the body.† In other words, if someone could prove that we can see without using our eyes, then that would mean the eyes, retina, optic nerve, and optical cortex in our brains aren't necessary for us to be able to see; they're just options the mind uses in the physical realm.

But seeing without using the eyes is very common today.† Thousands of people are able to see without using their eyes using a very common ability called "remote viewing."† The remote viewer sits quietly with his or her eyes closed and focuses on something hundreds or thousands of miles away.† The remote viewer is able to see it.† Not only that, but the person is often able to hear it, smell it, feel the texture, sense movement, and sense emotions involved with it.† In other words, the person is doing things outside of the body while the body is sitting quietly with its eyes closed.

The Government Found Remote Viewing Is Valid.

For several decades at the end of the twentieth century, the CIA had a remote viewing program named Operation Stargate that attempted to use remote viewers to spy on the Russians.† The program had remarkable results. In 1974, a remote viewer named Pat Price was to view a mysterious, unidentified research center at Semipalatinsk, USSR, to see what was there.† He sat with his eyes closed and focused on the area.† Below is his sketch of what he saw in his mind.† It had all the distinguishing marks of a gantry crane.26

 

Later, the CIA obtained satellite photos of the site.† A CIA artist created the following sketch of part of the site based on photos of the actual Semipalatinsk site.† It was a gantry crane:

Government Verification Study: Stanford Research Institute

The government wanted to be sure that their investment in remote viewing was going into a valid enterprise, so to find out whether people can really view things from a distance using remote viewing, the government agencies commissioned the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) to perform 154 experiments with 26,000 separate trials over 16 years.† At the end of that testing period, Edwin May, Ph.D., a researcher in low energy experimental nuclear physics, headed a team of researchers that analyzed the experiments and reported to the government.†

They concluded that the odds against someone merely guessing what remote viewers had described when focusing on a target at a distant location, was more than a billion billion to one. ††His only explanation was that they genuinely were seeing without using their eyes and without regard for how many miles away the target was.27

Government Verification Study: SAIC

Now satisfied that remote viewing existed, the government sponsors of the remote viewing activity requested a second evaluation to find out how it works.† Congress and the CIA commissioned a study by the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC).† The result of the study was that Jessica Utts, professor in the Division of Statistics at the University of California at Davis, prepared a report assessing the statistical evidence for remote viewing in U.S. government-sponsored research.† She uses the term "anomalous cognition" to refer to remote viewing. This is her conclusion:

It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria. The phenomenon has been replicated in a number of forms across laboratories and cultures. The various experiments in which it has been observed have been different enough that if some subtle methodological problems can explain the results, then there would have to be a different explanation for each type of experiment, yet the impact would have to be similar across experiments and laboratories. If fraud were responsible, similarly, it would require an equivalent amount of fraud on the part of a large number of experimenters or an even larger number of subjects. . . .

I believe that it would be wasteful of valuable resources to continue to look for proof. No one who has examined all of the data across laboratories, taken as a collective whole, has been able to suggest methodological or statistical problems to explain the ever-increasing and consistent results to date. Resources should be directed to the pertinent questions about how this ability works. I am confident that the questions are no more elusive than any other questions in science dealing with small to medium sized effects, and that if appropriate resources are targeted to appropriate questions, we can have answers within the next decade.28

Credible Sources Involved in Government Remote Viewing Projects Agreed It Occurred as Described.

Victor Zammit29 summarized statements from some government sources who had been involved in the Operation Stargate remote viewing project from Jim Schnabelís30 book:

"I never liked to get into debates with the skeptics, because if you didn't believe that remote viewing was real, you hadn't done your homework." ó Major General Edmund R Thompson, U.S. Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 1977-81, Deputy Director for Management and Operations, DIA, 1982-84

"You can't be involved in this for any length of time and not be convinced there's something here." ó Norm J., former senior CIA official who tasked remote viewers

"There were times when they wanted to push buttons and drop bombs on the basis of our information." †ó Dr. Hal Puthoff, a former manager of the CIA
remote-viewing program

"She went into a trance. And while she was in the trance, she gave us some latitude and longitude figures. We focused our satellite cameras on that point, and the lost plane was there." ó Former President Jimmy Carter, recalling a 1978 remote-viewing operation

Repeated Research Studies Demonstrated Remote Viewingís Validity.

The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Laboratory at Princeton University began conducting its own, independent studies of remote viewing in 1978.† They tested remote viewers by having a person travel to some distant location undisclosed to the remote viewer and having the remote viewer attempt to identify details about the location.† The remote viewers in 334 trials were able to describe details about where the person was with odds against guessing the details of the location of 100 billion to 1.31

In another study, Robert Jahn, former director of the PEAR Lab, and psychologist Brenda Dunne conducted 336 rigorous trials with 48 ordinary people who were asked to do remote viewing at distances ranging from five to 6,000 miles. Almost two-thirds of the results exceeded chance levels, with odds against chance being one billion to one.32

Russell Targ, a physicist who pioneered development of the laser, and Harold Puthoff, another physicist who wrote the widely read Fundamentals of Quantum Electronics, conducted experiments on remote viewing to determine whether the phenomenon was real.† In their tests, they had a person whom they called a "beacon" travel to a distant site to see whether a remote viewer could receive mental impressions about the site.† The beacon and remote viewer were separated by distances of several miles so there could be no communication between them, and the beacon was instructed to go to a site randomly chosen by Targ and Puthoff without the remote viewerís knowledge.† The remote viewer was to then focus on the beacon trying to get impressions about where the beacon was and writing or sketching the scenes.† This is a summary of their findings:

Independent judges found that the descriptions of the sketches matched on the average 66 percent of the time the characteristics of the site that was actually seen by the beacon.33

These findings were far beyond chance, demonstrating that the receiver was looking at the scene where the sender was while many miles away.

Dr. Chris Roe, a parapsychologist at the University of Northampton in the UK also verified remote viewing's validity through his studies.† When the results were reviewed by Dr. Brian Josephson, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Cambridge University, he concluded, "The experiments have been designed to rule out luck and chance. I consider the evidence for remote viewing to be pretty clear-cut.34

I Can See without Using My Eyes.

I'm especially able to see objects someone puts on a table or desk anywhere in the world.† I can sit in my office, close my eyes, and focus on the place where the object is.† In the blackness of my mind, I can begin to get images of the object and impressions about it.† I then write a description of the object and sketch it (although I'm not much of an artist).†

In 2005, I corresponded with a computer systems analyst in New Jersey named Bill Walker about remote viewing.† He asked me to do some sessions for him to show him what it is like.† I sat in my office in Illinois, closed my eyes, and focused on objects he had set up in New Jersey.† I e-mailed my impressions and sketches to him.† Some accurately described the objects he had in his office and house, so he decided to put my remote viewing sessions on his Web site.† I've reproduced them on the pages that follow to illustrate that we don't need a body to see things hundreds of miles away.† You can see his Web site by going to the link at http://ebook.youreternalself.com/chapter1.htm.†

This is his description from the Web site of how the sessions occurred:

Craig Hogan and I communicated only via email. He lives about 700 miles away from me. All he knew about me was my name, email address, and that I lived in New Jersey. I would place an object on my table and Craig would email me his impressions. He said that he often got impressions of other objects in the room. His only input was an object on Bill Walkerís table. The impressions included sketches and sometimes written descriptions. In between sessions, the only feedback I gave to him were the photos of matched items that I show below [on his Web site]. For each session, he gave anywhere from 5 to 20 impressions.

In the first session, Bill Walker told me he would put an object on the table in his office.† When I was ready to view the object that was the "target" on his table, I sat in my office in Illinois and closed my eyes.† I focused on seeing things "on Bill Walker's table."† In a few seconds, I did see a green light shining down on gold brassy parts and sent my notes to him, along with my sketches of what I saw. He responded to my notes telling me that the green light was his bankerís lamp with a green shade and gold bottom about six feet from the table in his office.† The other sketches didn't match things in the office.†

However, when he arrived home, he found that I had been sketching things on the tables in his home, not his office.† The sketches, my descriptions, and the photographs he sent me after I sent him my sketches are on the pages that follow.


The First SessionĖAn Orb

Below is the sketch of an orb I sent to him attached to an e-mail.† The text I sent in the e-mail follows the sketch.†

My sketch perfectly matched an orb on a table in his home.† He made a photograph of the orb and put it on his Web site.† The photograph is below the sketch.† The object is made of metal, and he described the color in this way: "in natural light, the orbs do have both silver and gold colors."

My sketch of what I saw in my mind

Photograph of the actual object

A Second SessionĖA Plant with Round Balls on It

We did other sessions focusing on things on tables in his home, since it appeared my mind wanted to look at tables there.† I knew nothing about the objects except that they were on tables in Bill Walkerís home.† I sat in my office in Illinois focusing on "a table in Bill Walkerís home," and saw in my mind a plant with large leaves and odd little balls at the ends of the stems.† I e-mailed the sketch below.† In the e-mail, I wrote "like stems, organic" and "looked like two leaves, with some stems that had small circles on the end of them."† Below the sketch I sent is a photograph he then sent to me of the plant on a table in his house.

My sketch of what I saw in my mind

Photograph of the actual object

 

A Third SessionĖA Peach-Colored Flower in a Pot

I closed my eyes again to look for "things on a table in Bill Walkerís house" and saw another plant that had a light peach flower on it.† I sketched the pot, two leaves on the sides, and a flower in the middle that I saw as "light peach."† The sketch is below. †I sent the description and sketch to him.† He returned the photograph of a plant on a table in his house that appears at the bottom of this page.† The flower is light peach.

My sketch of what I saw in my mind

Photograph of the actual object

A Session for Rick Stewart in Maryland

I did another remote viewing session for Rick Stewart, a man I had never met before, who lived in Maryland.† I viewed the object from my office in Illinois by closing my eyes and focusing on the object. This is the description I wrote in my e-mail to him and the sketch I sent:

First drawing round thing, two feet-like things out front and round thing on top, like a toy, yellow/green color.  I know there was something white somewhere on it but I forgot where by the time I sketched what I could get. 

Another view after writing my notes and closing my eyes again] Got another round thing.  This is rather like a doll, but it doesn't seem like a doll.  It's more like a rolly-polly thing with a body and feet.

I sent it to Rick Stewart in Maryland.† He returned the photograph of the target object that is at the top of the next page.† Its color is yellow green and the pinwheel on the front is white.

Photograph of the actual object

 

I can do this at any time, with accurate descriptions like these examples around 60% of the time.† It isnít just a one-time happening.

No photons came through my corneas to strike my retinas and create electrical pulses that would travel along the optic nerve to my brain.† There are no sensory input devices on my body that would receive photons from 800 or 900 miles away, and without photons, an image of the object organized into a pattern with billions of pieces to match the photons would have to all travel together to where I was sitting.† Something would have to encode the image (like a camera or retina), then transmit the image.† There was nothing like that involved.† Electromagnetic energy could not travel that far over the horizon, and studies of remote viewing with the viewers in rooms shielded by lead to block out energy (Faraday cages) show that the remote viewing is just as clear when no energy could possibly come to the viewer.35

The blob of fat and protein trapped inside the darkness of my skull couldnít possibly have seen a rolly-polly doll or plants on tables hundreds of miles away; but I saw them.† Or rather, my mind, which is outside of my brain, saw them.

The ability to remote view is very common among people.† There are clubs that do remote viewing, such as the very active, proficient group in Hawaii named the Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild that does remarkable, consistently accurate remote viewing for entertainment.† The links to some of these remote viewing groups, including the Hawaii group, are at http://ebook.youreternalself.com/chapter1.htm.

One estimate is that one out of a hundred people can do remote viewing successfully, meaning that among the 260 million people of all ages in the United States, 2.6 million can or will be able to do remote viewing.† I am able to do it.† I, and all of the many other people now doing remote viewing easily, at will, are able to close our eyes and intend to see something hundreds or thousands of miles away with nothing more to guide us than a location or a number assigned to the object or picture.† Images come to our minds, but they aren't coming through our eyes.

You can try remote viewing by taking the test I have online at http://ebook.youreternalself.com/chapter1.htm.

What Remote Viewing Means for Where You Are

The data showing that remote viewing is a common phenomenon are overwhelming.† It shows without question that people can sit quietly with their eyes closed and "see" things hundreds or thousands of miles away, in places theyíve never been.†

That means that the mind isnít in the brain.† It isnít trapped inside the bony encasing of a skull.† When people see using eyes, photons (light particles) come through the eye and travel along the optic nerve to the brain.† In remote viewing, there is no opening in the skull for images to come in.† There is no light energy coming from thousands of miles away.† We can remote view objects inside dark boxes and envelopes.† Studies of remote viewers in lead-lined rooms show that they still get images, so no electromagnetic signals (light, radio waves, infrared waves, microwaves) are involved.† There is no energy that carries the image.† The remote viewer sees instantly, regardless of distance.

What all that means is that the mind that does the seeing is outside of the brain and is linked with the object that is far away.† The spirit doesnít travel to the object.† There is no geographical distance where the mind is.† We are one with everything in the universe, including other people's minds.†

You arenít in a brain.† Your mind is outside of the brain.

Evidence We Know Information
Without Using the Brain

A large number of studies have demonstrated that people can know information without having any contact with what they have learned about.† From the 1880s to the 1940s, there were 142 published articles describing 3.6 million individual trials with 4,600 people attempting to identify the number and suit of a playing card face down in front of them.† In addition, ESP tests performed on the radio added 70,000 participants to the database.† The studies were performed at over two dozen universities around the world by hundreds of respected professors.36

The result was that participants were, on average, able to identify the cards at rates higher than chance.† They knew information they could not have received unless their minds were able to obtain it without using the body.† The results prompted Professor H. J. Eysenck, chairman of the Psychology Department at the University of London, to write in 1957,

Unless there is a gigantic conspiracy involving some thirty University departments all around the world, and several hundred highly respected scientists in various fields, many of them originally hostile to the claims of the psychical researchers, the only conclusion the unbiased observer can come to must be that there does exist a small number of people who obtain knowledge existing either in other peopleís minds, or in the outer world, by means as yet unknown to science.37

A Unified Visual Image in Our Mind Can't Be Accounted for with Just Using Brain Neurons.

The fact that we can see without using the eyes indicates that no signals come to the brain, and yet the mind sees.† That means the brain may not be involved in the process at all.† That is predicted from other research.† Studies of the brain fail to show how the light waves entering the eye can come together in the brain to form a complete image.

John Eccles, Nobel Prize winner in the study of the physiology of the nervous system, wrote Facing Reality: philosophical adventures of a brain scientist.† In it, he explains that when we see using the eyes, the light enters the eye and turns into nerve impulses in the retina that travel along the optic nerve to the brain. However, when they arrive there, they are fragmented and sent to different areas of the brain.† Science can find nothing in the brain that is able to bring the visual experience together.† Eccles writes that the only explanation is that there must be a conscious mind outside of the brain that influences the brain and makes patterns using it.†

The mind outside the brain apparently sends a willed action to the brain and the brain transmits to the mind a conscious experience, whole.38

Blind People, Whose Brains Cannot Process Sight Images, Are Able to See During Near-Death and 
Out-of-Body Experiences.

Blind people, including those blind from birth, can actually see during near-death experiences (NDEs) and out-of-the-body experiences (OBEs), suggesting that their minds must be independent of their bodies, which are unable see.† Kenneth Ring, Ph.D., professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Connecticut, and Sharon Cooper interviewed 31 blind and sight-impaired persons who had NDEs and OBEs, and found that 80 percent of them reported correctly "visual" experiences, some in detail. †For example, they reported correctly actual colors and their surroundings.† One patient who had become totally blind after having been sighted for at least 40 years "saw" the pattern and colors on a new tie during an out of body experience, even though everyone denied having ever described it to him. The results of the two-year research study were published in the book Mindsight.39

Dr. Larry Dossey, former chief of staff of Medical City Dallas Hospital, describes this case of a woman who had been blind from birth being able to see clearly during her near-death experience:

The surgery had gone smoothly until the late stages of the operation.† Then something happened.† As her physician was closing the incision, Sarahís heart stopped beating. . . . [When she awoke, Sarah had] a clear, detailed memory of the frantic conversation of the surgeons and nurses during her cardiac arrest; the [operating room] layout; the scribbles on the surgery schedule board in the hall outside; the color of the sheets covering the operating table; the hairstyle of the head scrub nurse; the names of the surgeons in the doctorsí lounge down the corridor who were waiting for her case to be concluded; and even the trivial fact that her anesthesiologist that day was wearing unmatched socks.† All this she knew even though she had been fully anesthetized and unconscious during the surgery and the cardiac arrest.

But what made Sarahís vision even more momentous was the fact that, since birth, she had been blind.40

It appears that Sarahís mind was seeing when her body was unable to see, both because she was unconscious and blind since birth.

People Rendered Temporarily Blind Are Able to Locate Things on a Computer Screen.

Blindsight is the ability to see without normal use of the eyes.† In studies when people were made blind temporarily, they were still able to locate things on a computer screen.† The author of the study, Tony Ro, a psychology professor at Rice University in Houston, has no explanation for the remarkable finding, but accepts that some alternative way of "seeing" is available to the brain.† "These findings demonstrate that while certain brain areas are necessary for awareness, there is extensive processing of information that takes place unconsciously."† He said these are results "suggesting the existence of alternate visual processing routes that function unconsciously . . ."41

The findings seem to fit with the others presented here demonstrating that seeing doesnít require eyes or the use of our brain.

Blind People Perform Actions and Describe Colors that Show Vision.

David Linden, professor of neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University, found that if the visual cortex is damaged, people will assert that they cannot see anything, but when asked to pick up an object in an unknown location within reach, many can do so on the first try. They also can judge an emotional expression on a face, especially anger, more often than chance would predict they would. †He suggests that signals from the eyes could go to a mid-brain area where theyíre processed even though the primary visual area is not operating.† However, there is no agreement about it and no convincing evidence of it.42

Lawrence Weiskrantz, Emeritus Professor of Psychology at Oxford University and recipient of the William James Fellow Award 1992 by the Association for Psychological Science, summarized the research showing that patients with lesions in their primary visual cortex, rendering them blind, are able to perceive colors and motion:

Previous research has reported that blindsight patients can retain the ability to detect monochromatic light and grating stimuli, and to discriminate orientation and direction of movement in their "blind" fields. These findings have been joined by reports that these patients also are sensitive to, and are able to discriminate, wavelength in the absence of any experience of "colour". This reveals that retinal pathways other than those to the striate cortex are crucially involved in vision.43

In all of these instances, the researchers suggest that some form of vision is left to bring signals from the eyes to the brain, although no such alternatives have been discovered.† However, these findings fit with the suggestion that the eyes are not necessary to seeing.

"Echolocation" Experiments Show Blind People Can See without Physical Eyeballs.

Another phenomenon, called "echolocation," also seems to show that blind people can "see" objects in their environment even when they canít use their optical organs.† In echolocation, the blind person makes sounds by tapping, clicking, or speaking, and while doing so, is able to walk or even ride a bicycle through an environment filled with obstacles.† The assumption has been that the blind person hears the echoes of the sounds reflected back from objects in the environment and can interpret the sounds to identify the objects.

Ben Underwood, who lost his sight to cancer as a toddler, has two artificial eyes made of plastic.† However, he walks without a cane or seeing-eye dog, plays video games, and identifies objects he passes by name: "Thatís a fire hydrant" or "Thatís a trash can." In a pillow fight, he can throw a pillow to hit a target person even when the person is moving and silent.44

Researchers know that the brain is active when a blind person is "seeing" using echolocation:

Scientists have discovered that in the brains of the blind, the visual cortex has not become useless, as they once believed. When blind people use another senseótouch or hearing, for exampleóto substitute for sight, the brain's visual cortex becomes active, even though no images reach it from the optic nerve. Echolocation creates its own images.45

The fact that the brain is active when the optical organs are not functioning fits with the suggestion made by some researchers that the brain may act rather like a television set that becomes active when a signal comes to it, but does not produce the signal.† Larry King isn't in the television.

Researchers have studied echolocation to try to determine how the blind can see to navigate and have concluded that it must be due to a sonar effect (hearing sounds bounce off of objects and judging their shape and distance from the sounds).† However, the actions of blind people using echolocation defy the possibility that it could be due simply to a sonar effect.† Ben Underwood, who has two plastic eyes, can perform feats such as hitting a target with a pillow at distances too far for hearing to be echoed back when the target is silent.† He can identify objects too far away for him to receive echoes when he is simply making clicking sounds.† He rides a bike without hitting obstacles, at speeds that preclude receiving sonar-type messages to avoid them, and he plays video games adeptly when the game is producing a cacophony of noises, and echolocation using sounds could not identify figures on a computer screen.†

The fact that more than sound echoes must be involved in navigating through an environment filled with obstacles, as in the example of Ben Underwood, is another indication that the mind seems to see without using the brain.

Accounts from physicians and nurses abound about people brought back from near death who had experiences of entering a warm, loving environment where they speak with their deceased loved ones.† The phenomenon was named a near-death experience (NDE) by Raymond Moody.46† During NDEs, many people see and hear what was going on as physicians and nurses worked feverishly to revive them and they were unconscious.† They recount statements made by those in the room, describe people and instruments, and even accurately restate conversations that went on in other rooms.

An organization of people who have had the experience, called the International Association for Near Death Studies (IANDS), now has tens of thousands of members.† Dozens of books have been written, filled with cases of people who have had near-death experiences.† A Gallup and Proctor poll in 1982 estimated that 5 percent of the adult population of the United States have had near-death experiences. Other surveys put the number at 7.5 percent.47

Near-death experiences, in other words, are commonplace.† One of the most remarkable things about NDEs is that while brain dead, without a trace of brain function, these people see and hear what is going on in the scene where their body lies unconscious, and at times in other rooms of the same building.† They then remember all of the details and recount them to the astonishment of physicians, nurses, and family members.†

During the near-death experience, no sensory experiences and no memory production would be possible if the mind were located in the brain.† During these times, people whose brain activity is being monitored are showing absolutely no life in the brain.† Dr. Peter Fenwick, a neuropsychiatrist and one of the leading authorities in Britain on near-death experiences, describes the state of the brain during a near-death experience:

The brain isn't functioning. It's not there. It's destroyed. It's abnormal. But, yet, it can produce these very clear experiences. . . . An unconscious state is when the brain ceases to function. For example, if you faint, you fall to the floor, you don't know what's happening and the brain isn't working. The memory systems are particularly sensitive to unconsciousness. So, you won't remember anything. But, yet, after one of these experiences [an NDE], you come out with clear, lucid memories. . . . This is a real puzzle for science. I have not yet seen any good scientific explanation which can explain that fact.48

Michael Sabom, MD, a cardiologist in Atlanta, Georgia, studied near-death experiences to see whether people really were seeing and hearing while their brains were completely non-functioning.† He identified a sample of 32 patients who had had an out-of-body experience during cardiac arrests while their brains were unable to function so their senses couldnít be receiving stimuli.† He asked the patients to describe in as much detail as they could what went on during their resuscitations.† To see whether someone could simply guess the details of what was happening in the trauma scene or recall the procedure from some chance reading about it in the past, he asked 25 other patients who had cardiac arrest but no out-of-body experiences to describe the events involving their resuscitation during their cardiac arrests.

Virtually all of the patients who said they did not have an out-of-body experience (20 out of 23) made at least one major error in their account.† All of the 32 patients who had near-death out-of-body experiences described the resuscitation successfully in specific facts or in the general procedure.† When he checked patient descriptions against the records available about their traumas, he found that six of those who had NDEs accurately described in great detail specific facts they could not have learned while lying unconscious that were peculiar to the situation, not just general information about resuscitation:

The recollected details in each case were quite accurate and not interchangeable with details from other near-death crisis descriptions.† These specific details included things like which family members were waiting where in the hospital and their emotional reactions, the type of gurneys the patients themselves were riding, the type and description of equipment used to treat them, etc. In one thought-provoking instance, an NDE survivor made an apparent error in describing the work of a defibrillation meteróuntil Sabom found out that the older model the patient described was exactly the kind used back in 1973 when the patient had his cardiac arrest.† Based on his research, Sabom ruled out a common explanation skeptics give for dismissing the reality of these details seen during an OBE: that the accurate portrayal of the near death crisis event is due to prior general knowledge the patient has of how a resuscitation works, and thus his description is merely an educated guess.49

Another study, published in the medical publication Journal of Resuscitation, concluded that people with no brain function who describe a near-death experience in fact have lucid thought processes, reasoning, and memory during the period of time when their brains are not functioning.† In the study, doctors at Southampton General Hospital in England interviewed 63 heart attack patients who had been evaluated to be clinically dead, but were subsequently resuscitated.† To ensure that their recollections were fresh, the people were interviewed within a week of the experience.† They described details and events in which they were thinking, reasoning, and consciously moving around during the period when they were unconscious, their bodies were motionless, and doctors working on them had determined their brains were not functioning. 50

The researchers went on to collect over 3,500 similar cases of people who had been evaluated to be clinically dead, but could recall remarkable details about events during the time when they should not have been able to sense anything or remember even if they had experienced something because they were clinically dead.

Dr. Sam Parnia, one of the physicians, described a child 2Ĺ years old whose heart had stopped beating.† He was unconscious and clinically dead, but was revived.† Afterward, the childís parents contacted Parnia to tell him that the boy had drawn a picture of himself portraying what it was like during the trauma, but in the picture he was outside of his unconscious body looking down at himself. In the drawing, there was a balloon-like area.† When the boy was asked what that was, he said matter of factly that when you die, you see a bright light and you are connected to a cord. Six months later, he was still drawing the same scene with the same details."51

A study of near-death experiences in the English medical journal, The Lancet, concluded "that the NDE might be a changing state of consciousness (transcendence) in which identity, cognition and emotion function independently from the unconscious body . . ."52 This is the study:

A team of doctors in the Netherlands studied 344 patients who were resuscitated after cardiac arrest, including 62 patients (18% of those revived) who reported NDEs.† They found that the NDE experiences werenít explainable as reactions to medication; by a fear of death on the part of the patient (a hypothesis offered by some psychologists to explain NDEs); or by physiological changes in the brain caused by a lack of oxygen which can cause sensory distortions and hallucinations.† Concluded the researchers, "The NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation."53

Sample Individual Near-Death Experiences Indicate the Brain Is Not Involved.

A number of verified near-death experiences on record provide unusually convincing evidence that the brain is not involved in the near-death experience.† A small sample of these cases documented by physicians and nurses follows.†

Maria, a migrant worker brought to Harborview Medical Centerís cardiac care unit in cardiac arrest, near death, felt herself floating upward out of the hospital.† As she rose, she saw, on a third-story window ledge of the hospital, "a manís dark blue tennis shoe, well-worn, scuffed on the left side where the little toe would go.† The shoelace was caught under the heel."† Health care workers investigated and found the tennis shoe precisely where Maria had described it.† The shoe was dark blue, had a well-worn scuff on the left side where the little toe would go, and the shoelace was caught under the heel.54

In another, similar incident, after an unconscious patient was revived, she described floating above the hospital where she saw a red tennis shoe on the roof of the hospital.† A janitor investigated and found a red tennis shoe, just as the patient described.55

Bruce Greyson, MD, professor in the Department of Psychiatric Medicine, University of Virginia, describes a patient named Al Sullivan, who underwent an emergency quadruple bypass operation.† While unconscious, he had an NDE:

Al Sullivan was a 55 year old truck driver who was undergoing triple by-pass surgery when he had a powerful NDE that included an encounter with his deceased mother and brother-in-law, who told Al to go back to his to tell one of his neighbors that their son with lymphoma will be OK. Furthermore, during the NDE, Al accurately noticed that the surgeon operating on him was flapping his arms in an unusual fashion, with his hands in his armpits. When he came back to his body after the surgery was over, the surgeon was startled that Al could describe his own arm flapping, which was his idiosyncratic method of keeping his hands sterile by holding his arms at his chest and gesturing with his elbows as he instructed staff about preparation for the operation.56

In another documented case, a nurse had removed the dentures of an unconscious heart attack victim and put them into the drawer on the table in the operating room called a "crash cart."† A week after the incident, as the nurse was distributing medications, she came to the heart-attack victimís room and he exclaimed excitedly, "'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are. . . . Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that cart; it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth."† At the point when the nurse did that, the patient was in a deep coma with his eyes closed, but he was perfectly accurate about what had happened.57

The nurse explained more about what the man then reported:

When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient's prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man."58

A famous NDE suggesting people are having sensory experiences when the body's senses were blocked or not functioning was the subject of a television documentary, "The Day I Died," and reported in Light and Death, a book by cardiologist Dr. Michael Sabom.59† To remove a deadly large aneurysm from beneath her brain, Pam Reynolds was put into a state of hypothermic cardiac arrest.† Her body temperature was lowered to 60 degrees, her heartbeat and breathing were stopped, and the blood was drained from her head; her brain waves flattened, showing no brain activity.†

After her successful operation, she was warmed and her own blood was returned to her body.  When she could communicate, she reported a startling near-death experience.  She gave remarkably accurate, detailed descriptions of the surgical procedure.  She reported that someone in the operating room said something about her arteries being small, and she described the Midas Rex bone saw as looking like an electric toothbrush, having interchangeable blades, and a high-pitched whirring sound.†

These things she saw and heard occurred during the time when she was deeply unconscious, but before the blood was actually drained from her. During the time she described hearing and seeing details, her eyes were taped shut and her ears were plugged with devices that monitored her brain stem activity. These devices produced loud clicks measuring 95 decibels at a rate of 11.3 clicks per second, drowning out all outside noise.60

Pam went on to describe a remarkable NDE experience that could have happened either when she was unconscious and sensory deprived or while she was brain dead.  During the near-death experience, she reported floating out of the operating room and traveling down a tunnel to a light at the end where her deceased relatives and friends were waiting.  Her long-dead grandmother was there.  Eventually, her deceased uncle took her back and she re-entered her body.

She said that during the experience, she saw with vision that was "brighter and more focused and clearer than normal vision."† When she heard her deceased grandmother calling, the sound was clearer hearing than she had with her ears, but her auditory functions were shut down by noise and unconsciousness.

Five eminent cardiac and medical specialists (Dr. Sam Parnia, Dr. Van Lommel, Dr. Robert Spetzler, Dr. Peter Fenwick, and Dr. Michael Sabom) all supported the accuracy of Pamís stated experience during her clinical death, reporting that "What she saw corresponded to what actually happened." 61 †She saw and heard details while either sensory deprived and unconscious, with her eyes taped shut and hearing blocked by loud clicks, or while she was brain dead.

People Commonly Describe Separating the Mind from the Body in Out-of-Body Experiences.

In out-of-body experiences (OBEs), people describe being conscious outside of their bodies and having normal sensory experiences such as traveling to locations, listening to conversations, and seeing distant people while the body is motionless.† OBEs are surprisingly common.† Five surveys done in the United Sates, dating back to at least 1954, show that as high as 25 percent of those polled responded that they had experienced an OBE.† A 1975 survey of a randomly selected group of 1,000 students and townspeople in a small town in Virginia found that 25 percent of the students and 14 percent of the townspeople reported having an OBE.62

Reports of OBEs have been well-documented for hundreds of years. Fredrick Myers' book, Human Personality and Its Survival After Death, documents hundreds of carefully recorded and verified accounts of out-of-body experiences. 63

In May 1980, Dr. Glen Gabbard of the Menninger Foundation, Dr. Stewart Twemlow of the Topeka V.A. Medical Center, and Dr. Fowler Jones of the University of Kansas Medical Center, presented the findings of studies of OBEs to the American Psychiatric Associationís annual meeting in San Francisco.† The researchers reported that those who experience OBEs describe them as being distinctly different from dreams or hallucinations.† They describe feeling a real sense of separation of the mind from the body.† The experiencers in the study tested normal in all psychological and physical senses. 64

D. Scott Rogo examined over 60 studies of out-of-body experiences and found these common conclusions:

     The OBE experience was a common human experience, with roughly 10-20 percent of the adult population undergoing an OBE sometime in their lives.

     OBE experiencers werenít special types of persons (e.g. persons with pathological states of mind, or over-anxious about death, prone to fantasy, etc.).

     At least some OBE experiencers can be "detected" at distant locations during their OBE travels by the use of animal, human and sometimes physical detectors.

     At least some gifted OBE experiencers can sometimes make surprisingly correct observations at distant locations while traveling out of the body.

     At least some OBEs are certainly not dreams or hallucinations.65

An anecdotal example of evidence that a person's mind leaves and returns to their body during an NDE comes from the research of Dr. Melvin Morse, Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Washington:

Olga Gearhardt was a 63 year old woman who underwent a heart transplant because of a severe virus that attacked her heart tissue. Her entire family waited at the hospital during the surgery, except for her son-in-law, who stayed home. The transplant was a success, but at exactly 2:15 am, her new heart stopped beating. It took the frantic transplant team three more hours to revive her. Her family was only told in the morning that her operation was a success, without other details. When they called her son-in-law with the good news, he had his own news to tell. He had already learned about the successful surgery. At exactly 2:15 am, while he was sleeping, he awoke to see his Olga, his mother-in-law, at the foot of his bed. She told him not to worry, that she was going to be alright. She asked him to tell her daughter (his wife). He wrote down the message, and the time of day and then fell asleep. Later on at the hospital, Olga regained consciousness. Her first words were "did you get the message?" She was able to confirm that she left her body during her near-death experience and was able to travel to her son-in-law to communicate to him the message. This anecdotal evidence demonstrates that the near-death experience is a return to consciousness at the point of death, when the brain is dying. Dr. Melvin Morse thoroughly researched Olga's testimony and every detail had objective verification including the scribbled note by the son-in-law.66

Charles Tart, MD, instructor in psychiatry in the School of Medicine of the University of Virginia and professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis, documented an event that happened with one of his research subjects.† The subject had had previous out-of-body experiences, so he set up a test to see whether she could have an out-of-body experience while asleep in which she floated out of her body and could read five numbers on a paper placed high enough in a room that she would be unable to see the paper by physically going to the location and trying to look at it.

He set up a bed and electroencephalograph (EEG) to measure her brain activity while she was asleep.† Electrodes were to be placed on her head with very little slack between the electrodes and the equipment.† She could turn over in bed, but not raise her head or move from the bed.† If she had removed the electrodes to stand up, that would have been recorded on the equipment, so she was effectively confined to the bed.†

On the evening of the study, he placed a small piece of paper with five randomly selected numbers on it, facing upward, on a shelf about 5.5 feet high on the wall of the experiment room.† Someone would have had to have been 6.5 feet off the ground to look down and read the numbers.† He hooked up the electrodes to the woman and started the monitoring equipment, confining her to the bed because of the short cables to the electroencephalograph.† She was to sleep that evening and, if she awoke after having had an out-of-body experience, she was to notify Tart and tell him what she saw.

At 6:04 a.m. the next morning, she awoke and called out to Tart that the target number was 25132.† That was, in fact, the number written on the small piece of paper.† The EEG showed that the electrodes had not been disturbed.† She had demonstrated that either she had an out-of-body experience or she clairvoyantly received the number.† In either event, it demonstrated that her mind was not confined to the fat and protein in her skull.† Her mind read the numbers from the sheet of paper without using her eyes or her brain.67

Victor Zammit, formerly a lawyer of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and of the High Court of Australia, describes a striking out-of-body experience:

In the United States, Karlis Osis and Boneita Perskari spent several years doing scientific research with an excellent OBE subject, Alex Tanous, and were able to achieve significant results. One particular test involved Tanous traveling astrally to a different place miles away to visit a particular office to see what was on the table then report back. Tanous did not know that at this office a psychic, Christine Whiting, was waiting to see if she could see anyone coming to visit. With her clairvoyant sight she was able to see Tanous come into the office and as well she described in detail his position and the shirt with rolled-up sleeves and the corduroy pants he was wearing.68

The account squared with what Tanous described about his clothing and the out-of-body experience.

Many records of psychic investigations have shown that psychics know information they are not getting from their body's senses.† They describe in great detail information about peopleís lives, dead and alive.† Psychic detectives such as my friend Greta Alexander receive specific details about cases without knowing anything about the people involved or visiting the town where the crime took place.

Consider the psychic detective case examples that follow. Statements by credible witnesses, including the police officers involved in the cases, are recorded on videotape.

An Australian series on psychic detectives entitled "Sensing Murder" aired its first episode on June 6, 2002.† The psychics were under the scrutiny of the television producers and skeptics who witnessed psychics Debbie Malone and Scott Russel-Hill attempt to provide details about a case, knowing only that it was a murder, nothing else.† These are the details they correctly identified:

    The victim was female.

    Her name was Sarah.

    She was in the early twenties.

    Her body was still missing.

    The victim had been dead around 13 years (it was actually 15 years).

    She was coming home from tennis.

    A car involved was a cream-colored early 80's Holden Commodore.

    The victim was attacked getting into her little red car.

    Frankston was the area.

    Kananook was the specific place of the murder.

    She was killed with a knife.

    They identified the attacker by name.

    The incident was at night.

    The killer was with a group.

    There was a female in the group.

    One member was nicknamed "Dwarfie."

    The group leader was nicknamed "Rat-head."

    They identified the exact parking space used by the victim.

    They identified where there had been blood on the ground.

    They identified where a witness who hadn't come forward had stood.

    Scott drew up a map which was identical to the area concerned.69

Such sessions are commonplace.† Psychic detectives are able to identify specific details about cases and lead police to victims and perpetrators.† Katherine Ramsland, of CourtTVís Crime Library, summarizes what we know about police use of psychic detectives:

Although skeptics galore decry the use of psychics for anything but entertainment, police departments around the country call on certain psychics when all else fails.  They've been doing that for more than a century, and when forbidden to do so, they sometimes use unofficial means.70

A psychic detective named Phil Jordan and detectives involved in a case appeared on a television show titled Nancy Grace on December 30, 2005.71† Jordan had been brought in on a case because two men had apparently drowned in a fast-moving stream in the Finger Lakes region of New York, but their bodies could not be found.† He said that in his mindís eye, he saw a red flower floating down the stream where the body of the larger of the two men would be found, but it was late winter, so that didnít seem possible.† He sat before a map and pinpointed pools of water where he said the larger man's body would be found.

The detectives went to the pools of water and found the larger manís body.† There, they also found red flowers floating down the stream. Friends of the deceased had dropped flowers into the water upstream where the man likely fell in, as a memorial, with no knowledge of the psychicís words.† The flowers had floated downstream to where the body actually was.†

During the same Nancy Grace show, Jordan, the psychic, described what he told detectives when he was brought in on the case of a police officer killed in Akron, Ohio.† He described it as a robbery gone bad, felt there were five individuals involved, said that the murdered officer knew the killer through his drug-unit police work, saw in his mindís eye a basketball hoop near the body, and felt the killer had the tip of his trigger finger missing.

Jordan hadnít seen the crime scene, but there was, in fact, a basketball court there.† As a result of these statements by Phil Jordan, detectives pulled photos of suspects known to the drug unit the murdered officer had worked in, narrowing them down to 35 or 40 suspects.† They asked Phil Jordan to see if men in any of the photographs seemed to be among the murderers.† He picked five of the photos as being of men likely involved.† The detectives interrogated all five.† Three were eventually found guilty of the murder.† The convicted shooter had the tip of his trigger finger missing.72

Psychic activity such as that reported in these documented cases happens commonly today.† The psychics are using their minds to learn information they could not know if their minds had been confined to their brains.†

More evidence that the mind is outside of the brain is in the finding that the mind knows information before itís even available to the brain, then tells the brain about it so the brain registers activity, just as a television does when it receives the signal from a distant location.† Descriptions of these phenomena follow.

People React to Pictures Seconds Before Seeing Them.

Dr. Dean Radin, Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, performed carefully controlled studies in which people seated before a computer monitor were shown calm pictures (pastoral scenes and neutral household objects) and emotional pictures (erotic and violent scenes).† The pictures were selected at random by a computer and shown in random order.† Their skin conductance levels (SCL) were measured continually during the entire test.† The skin conductance test is like a lie detector that shows whether the person feels stress.† As you might expect, people showed stress at seeing the emotional pictures and calm when shown the calm pictures.†

But remarkably, the tests consistently showed that some people reacted to the pictures with the appropriately matched calm or stress as early as six seconds before the pictures were shown, even though the computer hadn't selected them at random yet.† That suggests that the people weren't using the body to learn about the pictures.73

The studies were replicated by Dick Bierman, a psychologist at the University of Amsterdam and Utrecht University.74

What this means is that the personís mind must have already been reacting to information it received before the information even existed in the physical realm for the eyes to see.†

People Can Successfully Predict "Targets" to be Shown Before a Computer Even Selects the Target.

There has been other evidence that the mind knows things before the brain and body's senses are involved.† Dr. Charles Honorton was Director of the Division of Parapsychology and Psychophysics at Maimonides Medical Center in New York.† He and his colleagues looked at all the tests performed from 1935 to 1987 that were designed to determine whether someone (called a "subject") could predict which "target" was about to be shown from several possible targets.† The target was going to be chosen at random in some way: by a computer, by throwing a die, or by some other method no one could influence.† In each study, the subject was shown a selection of several targets such as colored lamps, symbols on cards, or the number on a die and asked to guess which one would be the chosen target.† Then, one target was selected at random by the computer or rolling a die or some other uncontrollable, random action.† The studies compared each subjectís prediction with the target that was actually selected.†† †

Honorton and his colleagues found reports of 309 experiments in 113 articles published from 1935 to 1987, done by 62 different investigators. Combined, they totaled 2 million individual trials by over 50,000 subjects. †The time intervals between the guesses and the random selections of targets ranged from milliseconds to a year. The results were that the subjects were able to predict which target would be selected more often than would occur by chance guessing, with the odds against it being by chance at ten trillion trillion to one.75

As might be expected, when these findings were published, other researchers from around the world, from Edinburgh University to Cornell in the United States, rushed to duplicate the experiment and improve on it. They all got similar results and extended the experiments and findings:

It was soon discovered that gamblers began reacting subconsciously shortly before they won or lost. The same effect was seen in those who are terrified of animals moments before they were shown the creatures. The odds against all of these trials being wrong is literally millions to one against.76

In other words, the mind outside of the body seems to know information before it is available for any of the bodyís senses to receive it.

People Successfully Anticipate Someoneís Call or Visit.

This ability of the mind to know something before the brain could even have access to the information is common in peopleís everyday lives.† Weíve all had the experience of thinking of someone and a few minutes later that person calls or knocks on the door.† It could be someone we havenít seen for days or weeks.†

To find out whether that really is a premonition that the person will call or knock on the door, Rupert Sheldrake, a British biologist, performed experiments in which he gave subjects a list of four people and had the subjects sit quietly beside the phone.† They were then asked to select which of the four people they believed was about to call.† The person among the four who would call was selected at random by rolling a die, so no one would know who was going to call.†

Sheldrake studied a number of people using this setup.† We would expect that the subjects would guess correctly 25 percent of the time just by chance (one out of four).† However, Sheldrake had results of 45 percent correct, showing that people often did know before a person called who was going to call.77

That knowledge apparently was coming from a source outside of the person, another indication that the mind must not be confined to the brain.

People React to a Touch About to Happen Before It Even Happens to the Body.

Benjamin Libet, Ph.D., a neurobiologist at the Medical Center of the University of California, was measuring how quickly the brain would register stimulation, such as a being touched on the arm, by using electrodes to measure when the brain responded.† The surprising result was that the person involved in the test stated that he was aware (conscious) of the sensation a few thousands of a second following the stimulation, but the personís brain didnít register the touch until after that.† In other words, it seems that the personís mind knew about the stimulation before the brain did.78

People Prepare to Act Before the Deciding Part of the Brain Begins to Show Activity.

A similar finding resulted from other studies by Dr. Libet. He conducted experiments in 1985 that showed the motor area of the brain prepares to act a measurable length of time before a person uses the part of the brain that decides to act.† He asked test subjects to decide to lift either the right finger or the whole right hand.† The subjects were connected to brain-wave-measuring machines (EEGs) to see when the decision-making part of the brain was working and when the motor or muscle part of the brain was working.† The times on the EEG recordings were carefully monitored.† The results were that the part of the brain that governs movement was getting ready to raise the finger or hand before the decision was even made in the brain, on average by a half second.79

The mind apparently had already made the decision before it told the brain about it.

Scientists Have Become Convinced by the Evidence that the Mind Knows Before Sensed Information is Available.

Professor Dick J. Bierman of the University of Amsterdam and Utrecht University, has been active in the field of parapsychology for over two decades, though he has been skeptical about the reality of psychic phenomena. After receiving his Ph.D. in experimental physics, he became involved in research in artificial intelligence, specifically intelligent tutoring systems. This resulted in a focus on individual learning and later on learning during altered states of consciousness, especially learning during sleep.†

His decades of research into how people know led him to change his viewpoint about psychic phenomena.† This is his description of the conclusion he came to about peopleís ability to sense the future:

Weíre satisfied that people can sense the future before it happens. . . . Weíd now like to move on and see what kind of person is particularly good at it.80

Professor Brian Josephson, a Nobel Prize winning physicist from Cambridge University, similarly concluded,

So far the evidence seems compelling. What seems to be happening is that information is coming from the future.81

A meta-analysis of all precognition experiments conducted at Stanford Research Institute from 1973 to 1988 was conducted by Edwin May, Ph.D., a researcher in low-energy, experimental nuclear physics, and his colleagues. The analysis was based on 154 experiments with more than 26,000 separate trials conducted over 16 years. They concluded that the studies showed that people were able to predict the future, with the statistical results of this analysis showing odds against chance that were of more than a billion billion to one.82

Sensory experience confines a person to knowing about what is happening currently, in the immediate environment of the body.† These studies and the conclusions by the researchers who have reviewed them indicate that the mind must be obtaining information from some source outside of the body and brain that it knows and remembers.† That suggests that the mind is not in the brain.

The remarkable abilities some people show defy the notion that a merely mechanical brain could suddenly produce remarkable creations.† Machines perform as they were built to perform, but the mind can perform feats far beyond a brain machineís capabilities.† Some examples follow.

Child Prodigies Have Abilities that Come
from Somewhere Other than the Brain
.

Jay Greenberg: Music prodigy

Jay Greenberg is 12 years old, but already has written five full-length symphonies and is now enrolled in the Juilliard School of Music.83† Greenberg says that music just fills his head and he has to write it down to get it out.† He doesnít know where it comes from, but it comes fully written, playing like an orchestra within his head: "It's as if the unconscious mind is giving orders at the speed of light," he reports. "You know, I mean, so I just hear it as if it were a smooth performance of a work that is already written, when it isnít." 84

†But heís not alone.† He was preceded by Mozart (who played whole pieces of music at four and wrote his first composition at five), Mendelssohn (who wrote his first piece at age 11), and Camille Saint-Sans (who at age 10 could play any of Mozartís piano concertos from memory).†

Where are Greenbergís creations coming from?† "It's as if heís looking at a picture of the score, and heís just taking it from the picture, basically," says Sam Zyman, a composer and Greenbergís teacher at Juilliard.† In fact, at around age two, Greenberg started drawing instruments.† Before he knew what a cello was, he had drawn a picture of one and had written the name. His mother, who has no musical background, reported, "He managed to draw a cello and ask for a cello, and wrote the word cello. And I was surprised, because neither of us has anything to do with string instruments. And I didnít expect him to know what it [a cello] was."† At age three, he was drawing the notes for the cello performance.85† He had not been taught how to draw notes, and certainly not how to create a cello performance, yet they came to him.

In 2007, she reported that ". . . he told us he often hears more than one new composition at a time. Multiple channels is what itís been termed." Says Jay, ". . . my brain is able to control two or three different musics at the same time Ė- along with the channel of everyday life."† He doesnít revise his compositions.† They usually come out right the first time. 86

Akiane: Art and poetry prodigy

Akiane is an accomplished artist and poet who began drawing at age four.† She is considered the only known child "binary" genius, meaning she is a prodigy in both realist painting and poetry. 87† Akiane has had solo art exhibitions at ages 9, 10, 11, and 12.† She had a life-changing spiritual transformation at age four, bringing her entire family, including her atheist mother, to God. Like Jay Greenberg, she explains that her poems often arrive fully conceived.88

Olivia Bennett: Art prodigy

Olivia Bennett began painting at age five.† Now 17, her work is well known and has been compared to that of the art master Georgia OíKeeffe.89

Materialists assert that these prodigies result from mysteries of the brain, but they canít explain how.† Itís clear that unusual abilities of these magnitudes couldnít come from three to five pounds of fat and protein squashed inside a skull.† If the phenomenon were simply a product of the same machine brain 6 billion people on the planet share in common, we would expect a sizable percentage of the machines to be equally talented.† But machines donít suddenly take on remarkable properties, and few people are prodigies.

For a list of child prodigies in various fields, go to http://ebook.youreternalself.com/chapter1.htm.

Creativity Comes from Outside the Brain.

The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. . . . Conventional words or other signs have to be sought for laboriously only in a secondary stage. . . .when words intervene at all, they are, in my case, purely auditive. Ė Albert Einstein90

Graham Wallas created a sequence that creativity seems to go through that is widely accepted today:91

    Preparation Ė Knowledge of the facts, insights, and general knowledge base about the subject that is the focus of the creative endeavor.

    Incubation Ė Great ideas seem to require some time from the moment the person begins exploring a problem to the time a creative idea comes.

    Illumination Ė This is a flash of insight about a new approach or new idea.† Wallas described it as a mysterious phase in which the creative insight seems to appear almost magically from nowhere.

    Verification Ė The idea is tested to be sure it works.

The "illumination" step is the most revealing.† Creative people describe the insight or answer just "coming to them."† If the insights were coming from the brain as a machine, we would not have this sudden insight.† New ideas would come at the end of a logical process, like putting figures into the cells of a spreadsheet and having the correct results appear.† The mechanical process would be to think through the knowledge, and at the end of the thought process the answer would be apparent.† That isnít what creative people describe happening.† The insights seem to come fully formed from a source the person can't identify.

Creative people such as musicians, writers, and theoretical mathematicians and physicists commonly describe these mysterious, sudden insights.† Larry Dossey, chief of staff, Medical City Dallas Hospital and director of the Biofeedback Department of the Dallas Diagnostic Association, describes such a burst of creativity that came to a renowned concert artist, Rosalyn Tureck.† At the age of 17, Tureck was playing a Bach fugue when she says she had this remarkable experience:

Suddenly she lost all awareness of her own existence.† On coming to, she saw Bachís music in a totally new way, with a new structure that required the development of a novel piano technique.† She worked it out over the next two days, applying it to four lines of the fugue, which she played at her next session.†† Her teacher felt her interpretation was marvelous but could not be sustained or applied to Bachís entire oeuvre.† "All I knew," Tureck said, "was that I had gone through a small door into an immense living, green universe, and the impossibility for me lay in returning through that door to the world I had known."92

Later, she became the first woman invited to conduct the New York Philharmonic Orchestra.†

Mozart described his musical composition in much the same way the child prodigies describe theirs: as coming whole into the mind:

All this fires my soul, and, provided I am not disturbed, my subject enlarges itself, becomes methodized and defined, and the whole, though it be long, stands almost complete and finished in my mind, so that I can survey it, like a fine picture or a beautiful statue, at a glance.† Nor do I hear in my imagination the parts successively, but I hear them, as it were, all at once.† What a delight this is I cannot tell!† All this invention, this producing, takes place in a pleasing, lively dream.93

Physicist Michael Faraday, renowned for his work with electromagnetism, said that his thinking was almost entirely visual.† He originated his theories without the help of a single mathematical formula.94

Max Knoll, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Princeton University and inventor of the electron microscope, described this inspiration with a suggestion that it comes from some greater source:

The fact that an idea suddenly emerges full-blown call[s] for the existence of . . . a special intuitive function.† The content of this idea is best described in . . . timeless, nonspatial . . . terms. . . . Always unmistakable are the suddenness and activity of the intuitive event, and its tendency to occur in a state of relaxation, and after a protracted "period of meditation." . . . This . †. . cannot be attributed . . . to higher thinking functions.95

Savants Have Abilities Outside the Capabilities of Their Brains.

Savants normally are autistic in most areas of their mental development, meaning they are withdrawn, donít react normally to their environments, donít communicate well, and have mental deficits.† However, savants have abilities called "splinter skills," meaning they are focused in a highly specialized area such as recalling facts, numbers, license plates, maps, and extensive lists of statistics after being exposed to them only once.

Kim Peek, whose life inspired the movie Rain Man with Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise, had macrocephaly resulting from damage to the cerebellum.† He was missing parts of his brain, so he didnít learn to walk until age four and still walks in a sidelong manner.† He cannot button up his shirt and has difficulty with other motor activities.† His IQ scores are well below average.

However, in spite of his deficiencies, he can recall books in their entirety, from memory.† He has photographic recall of about 98% of what he reads one time.† His ability to read came suddenly at age three:

At age three Kim asked his parents what the word "confidential" meant. He was kiddingly told to look it up in the dictionary and he did just that. He somehow knew how to use the alphabetical order to locate the word and then proceeded to read, phonetically, the word's definition (Since that time Kim has read, and can recall, some 7600 books).96

The most reasonable explanation for the savantís unexplainable ability is that memory and the mind arenít in the brain.† A person not focused on the physical realm has access to a great variety of other abilities and memories.† The savant's knowledge seems to come from the same place from which a psychic receives knowledge that is outside of the immediate physical environment.

A materialist might suggest that the brain simply has greater capabilities in a highly focused area when the other parts of the brain that should have developed are allocated to that focused area.† However, there is no research to indicate that other parts of the brain somehow become converted to the focused skills; in fact, damage to the brains of savants means parts of the brain simply donít work.

The abilities can develop suddenly, showing that this ability doesnít develop gradually as unused parts of the brain are dedicated to the unusual abilities. When they are acquired suddenly, the effect is known as the "acquired savant syndrome."97† That was the case with savant Orlando L. Serrell.98† Orlando was simply an ordinary boy until, at age 10, he was struck by a baseball on the left side of his head.† He fell to the ground, but didnít report it to his parents or receive medical attention, although he suffered from a headache for a long time.† However, he found that he then was able to perform calendrical calculations of incredible complexity.† That means if you ask Orlando what day of the week January 4, 2015, will fall on, he will be able to tell you, "Saturday," instantly, without a pause to calculate and with perfect accuracy.† The boyís brain didnít develop over time so that more brain was focused on calendrical calculations.† The change happened immediately after the accident.

At six years of age, an autistic child named Matt Savage suddenly began playing London Bridge Is Falling Down perfectly on the piano without trial and error to learn it, "from nothing to playing perfectly," his mother said.99† Today he is an accomplished jazz pianist.† Before that day when he spontaneously started playing the piano, he did not like to be exposed to any noise.

Edward F. Kelly is currently Research Professor in the Department of Psychiatric Medicine at the University of Virginia. He is author of Computer Recognition of English Word Senses, Altered States of Consciousness and Psi: An Historical Survey and Research Prospectus, and Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the 21st Century.† He asserts that the reality of psychic knowledge (knowing outside of the brain) has been experimentally established beyond any reasonable doubt, and any viable theory of human personality will have to accommodate this fact.100

If life memories were stored in the brain, we would expect that when the person relaxes the focus of wakeful awareness by sleeping, the brain would access those memories and play them back in dreams because it would require less effort.† Without wakeful control, the memories would simply spill out into dreams.† If memories were stored in the brain like a movie on a DVD, when the brain was searching for some source of images during the dream state, it would pull out some of its stored moviesótheyíre already there, so it would take little energy to just play them back.† At the very least, the brain would play back some of the memories during sleep in exactly the same way they occurred when the memories were experienced.†

Instead, when you relax into a half-sleep or are in a full-dream sleep, you witness scenes of people you donít know doing things you donít anticipate, saying things you didnít remember anyone saying in your lifetime.† Your mind is off in the same place your memories, creativity, thoughts, and the mind are, where entirely new creations evolve† in ways different from what your eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin actually experienced as sensual input.† If the brain were a machine, you could no more do that than you could get a dry martini out of an old coke machine.† Let a toaster run by itself for decades and it will never produce a cup of coffee.† The capability for novelty and creativity just isnít in a machine.

Instead, the personís mind sails off into flights of fancy.† It creates entirely new dramas with some of the same characters in the personís life, but some entirely new characters the dreamer has never met and will probably never meet in life.† In other words, the mind, in sleep, goes to the same place where memories are stored, outside of the brain.† But since it has a universe of resources to draw from, it sets about creating an entirely novel life for itself, like another Earth realm, using the personís life experiences as only the basis for the dreams.†

At times, dreams have important messages, or contain vivid images of and conversations with deceased loved ones.† That couldnít come out of the brain.

The research seems clear that when we have a memory, it isnít that the brain creates the memory.† The brain does take on the same state it was in when the memory was first created.† It has sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and sensations of touch, and it plays them in a sequence as though the memory were being lived again. †The mind then feels all the same emotions because it believes itís in the original, remembered state, even though it may be remote in time.

Those who speak about this re-creation of memory in the brain use the term, "whole-brain memories."101† They canít find out where memories are stored in the brain, but they know that a memory uses many partsóthe sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, emotional, psychomotor, and psychokinetic areas of the brainóso they assume the memories must be stored in many parts of the brain in some mysterious, not-understood way.† However, there is no evidence to assume that memories are stored in the brain, and the requirements on the brain to accomplish that would be impossible to realize.† We just know that when the mind wants to recall something, it wills the memory into existence and the brain takes on the same states it had when the memory was formed so the person sees the image, hears the sounds, feels the textures, smells the odors, and feels the emotions, but the source of these experiences is unknown.

The only viable explanation for what is happening is that the mind, outside of the brain, brings whole memories to the brain and reorganizes the brain to duplicate what the mind was experiencing when the memories were formed.† The brain, in other words, is like a television.† The signal coming into it aligns its components to create images of the Simpsons on the screen, just as a memory is recreated in the mind.† But the television doesnít create the image of Bart Simpson; Bartís image and zany actions arenít stored in the television.† The television is just the instrument that allows Bart to be experienced again as he was when his image was first created, outside of the television set.

When the television set is damaged, perhaps by having a short circuit burn out a part, the television will not function properly.† We could turn on Larry King but we might not be able to hear sound, or the picture may be distorted or fuzzy. However, that doesnít mean Larry King has been struck dumb or has become fuzzy.† The signal, just like a personís mind, is perfectly fine when the television or the brain is damaged; they just donít function well enough to receive and process the signals correctly.

Some recent research supporting the view that the mind outside of the brain forms the brain to have experiences is presented in Chapter 10.†

Neuroscientists canít locate your mind or your memories in the brain, so many are now suggesting that the mind is not in the brain.† The data seem to support that because the brain doesnít have the capacity to hold all the memories and missing large parts of the brain doesnít affect memory or thinking.† At the same time, many people, including me and units of the United States Government, can see objects and scenes thousands of miles away without using our eyes.† Blind people see clearly in near-death experiences and have the remarkable ability to locate objects and even ride bicycles without using physical eyes.† People having near-death experiences when the brain is completely nonfunctioning as shown on brain-monitoring equipment see, hear, and know more clearly than when they are fully awake, and they the experiences are stored in memory while the brain shows no functioning.† Out-of-body experiences demonstrate that people lying in bed at one location can see scenes far away without using their closed eyes.† Peopleís minds react to pictures before a computer has even chosen them, showing the brain couldnít be involved, and we commonly know someone is going to call or visit with no sensory organs sending information to the brain to tell us that.† Musical scores and creative ideas pop into peopleís minds in ways a brain machine couldnít manage.† Savants have remarkable abilities beyond the brainís capacities.† And in dreams we sail off into flights of fancy rather than playing back memories stored in the brain.

The data all clearly indicate that the mind simply is not in the brain.† Youíre outside of the body in an entirely different realm. †That will have profound implications for your relationships with other people because your mind is one with their minds.† It will prove to you the truths about the afterlife because if you're not limited in the body, you don't die when the body dies.

The body is useful for having experiences, but itís just like a television.† You turn it on so you can experience the Simpsons or Larry King.† But just as the signal comes from outside the television, your mind is outside the brain and the body, and like the first television you had decades ago that you don't have any use for or affection for today, you will find that you don't need or care about the body when it stops functioning.† That's what we'll explore in the next chapters.

For more about the mind and the brain, log onto http://ebook.youreternalself.com/chapter1.htm.

 

Thanks for reading.

I really want this book to help people realize they're eternal beings having a physical experience. Any comments, positive and negative, will help me.

Mail to rchogan@youreternalself.com.

The book is published in paperback by Greater Reality Publications. Click here to purchase a copy of the book.

Thanks.

Love and peace, Craig

 

Chapter 1 Endnotes

1 Patt, n.d.

2 Schroeder, 2001, p. 158.

3 Hameroff, n.d.

4 Presti, 2006.

5 Chalmers, 1997.

6 Sheldrake, "Nature As Alive . . ." n.d.

7 Sheldrake, "Nature As Alive . . ." n.d.

8 Carter, 2007.

9 Hamani, McAndrews, Cohn, et al. 2008.

10 Tippit, n.d.

11 Berkovich, n.d.

12 Grof, 1998.

13 Carter, 2007.

14 Burt, 1975.

15 Carter, 2007.

16 Touber, 2007.

17 Hamani, McAndrews, Cohn, et al. 2008.

18 Carter, 2007.

19 Radin, 1997, p. 259.

20 Mars, n.d.

21 Restak, 2006, p. 596.

22 Weiss, 1969.

23 Choi, 2007.

24 Choi, 2007.

25 "Tiny-brained manís lifestyle . . ." 2007.

26 Images from H. E. Puthoff, "CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing At Stanford Research Institute." Institute for Advanced Studies.

27 Radin, 1997, p. 101.

28 Utts, 1995.

29 Zammit, 2006.

30 Schnabel, 1997.

31 Radin, 1997, p. 104.

32 Radin, 1997, p. 105.

33 Targ & Puthoff, 1974; Targ & Harary 1984; Puthoff & Targ 1976.

34 Penman, 2008.

35 Targ & Katra, 1998.

36 Radin, 1997, pp. 96-97.

37 Radin, 1997, pp. 96-97.

38 Carter, 2007.

39 Ring & Cooper, 1999.

40 Dossey, 1989, p. 18.

41 "Study suggests brain . . ." 2005.

42 Begley, 2007.

43 Weiskrantz, 2007.

44 "Amazing Blind Teen . . ." 2006.

45 "Humans with Amazing Senses . . ." 2006.

46 Moody, 2001.

47 Linzmeier, 2006.

48 Fenwick, 2007.

49 Sabom, 1982.

50 "Study Suggests Life After Death . . ." 2007.

51 "Study Suggests Life After Death . . ." 2007.

52 Van Lommel, 2001.

53 Van Lommel, 2001.

54 Sharp, 2003.

55 Ring & Lawrence 1993.

56 Cook, Greyson, & Stevenson 1998.

57 Van Lommel, 2001.

58 Van Lommel, Wees, Myers, & Elfferic, 2001.

59 Sabom, 1998.

60 Kelly, Kelly, Crabtree, & Gauld, 2006.

61 Sabom, 1998.

62 Twemlow et al., 1980.

63 Myers, 2007.

64 Twemlow et al., 1980.

65 Rogo, "Researching . . ." Cited in Schmicker, Best Evidence, p. 203.

66 Morse with Perry, 1994.

67 Tart, 1968.

68 Zammit, 2006, p. 69.

69 Zammit, "Australian Psychics . . ." n.d.

70 Ramsland, 2007.

71 "Psychic Detectives," 2005.

72 "Psychic Detectives," 2005.

73 Radin, 1997, pp. 118-124).

74 Bierman & Radin, 1997.

75 Honorton & Ferrari, 1989.

76 Penman, 2007.

77 Sheldrake, "Experiments on Telephone Telepathy" n.d

78 Libet, 1984.

79 Libet, 1979.

80 Penman, 2007.

81 Penman, 2007.

82 Radin, 1997, p. 101.

83 "Prodigy, 12, Compared to Mozart," 2007.

84 "Prodigy, 12, Compared to Mozart," 2007.

85 "Prodigy, 12, Compared to Mozart," 2007.

86 "Prodigy, 12, Compared to Mozart," 2007.

87 Akianeís Web site.

88 Akianeís Web site.

89 Olivia Bennettís Web site.

90 Cited in Jacques Hadamard, 1949, pp. 142-143.

91 "Graham Wallasí model," 2007.

92 Dossey, 1989, pp. 32-33.

93 Quoted in Chesterman, 1974, p. 186.

94 Kendall, 1955, p. 138.

95 Knoll, 1957, p. 270.

96 Treffert, 2007.

97 Treffert, n.d.

98 Orlando Serrell Web site. http://www.orlandoserrell.com.

99 Martin, 2006.

100 Kelly, 2000.

101 Basar, 2005.