Blog

Missing Something Big

Posted by Roberta Grimes • January 22, 2016 • 33 Comments
Afterlife Research, Human Nature, Quantum Physics, Understanding Reality

HourglassThe foolish adherence of mainstream science to the false dogma of materialism is now more than a century old. And materialism has brought us so much pain! It has forced brilliant scientists to waste their careers in pursuing baseless dead-end theories while it continues to keep humankind in unnecessary ignorance and fear.

The damage caused by that dogma of materialism is evident across all of scientific inquiry, from the diagnosis and treatment of disease through our efforts to better understand the cosmos. But perhaps the field in which it is most patently ridiculous is neuroscience, were yet more careers are being wasted in the expensive study of nothing much.

The fact that the human mind can function independently of the brain is at this point established beyond question. There are so many well-documented cases of out-of-body travel that include observations that would not have been possible if the mind had not been separate from its brain. Every scientist must by now be aware of them! Near-death experiences? The pioneering work being done at The Monroe Institute? Prominent NDE-er Eben Alexander is himself a neurosurgeon, for heaven’s sake! The fact that every neuroscientist must know that evidence has been reported which suggests that the mind is not generated by the brain has to be our ironic backdrop as we consider two examples of what passes for modern scientific inquiry:

* Do You Have Free Will? If we study only the brain, then it is obvious that free will is an illusion. To quote an article that sums up recent experimental results, our minds appear to be making decisions before we’re actually aware of them — and at Max Planck Busttimes by a significant degree.” Well, sure. As afterlife research abundantly indicates, and as quantum physicist Max Planck said a century ago, human minds must necessarily pre-exist matter. When you take a brief stint in a material body, you leave most of your eternal mind behind as a kind of super-consciousness that your awareness cannot access while it is attached to a brain. The extent to which your decisions are made beyond your awareness for efficiency’s sake is a topic for another day, but it is patently clear that most bodily decisions are made beyond our conscious ken. Imagine how inefficient our lives would be if we had to consciously deliberate about which muscles to activate, and in which order, every time we wanted to stand from a chair and go and fetch a book from a bookcase! There are important inquiries to be made into the ways in which our super-conscious minds interact with our brains, but scientists can do none of that research while they still willfully mischaracterize the mind.

* Where and How Are Our Memories Stored? Perhaps the strangest scientific pursuit of all is the hesitant study of the brain itself. As befits mainstream science’s fundamental dogma, all such research must be matter-based, so a typical article begins

human brain on white backgroundwith a bald assertion like, “The human brain has a capacity that is ten times greater than first thought.” Then we read the rest of the article, and we find that this assertion is  based on math and speculation and has nothing to do with the actual measurement of memory storage. To prove that they aren’t straying from materialist rules, the authors assert without evidence that “our memories and thoughts are the result of patterns of electrical and chemical activity in the brain.” They do admit, though, that the very brain synapses they are studying “are still a mystery, though their dysfunction can cause a range of neurological diseases.” Of course, the fact that our minds survive our deaths and are greatly enhanced once our awareness merges with our super-consciousness soon after death gives the lie to this whole field of inquiry. And the fact that our memories from past and future lifetimes are accessible to us after death is further proof that our brains are not for storage. At best, scientists might be able to figure out how our brains sort and encode our more important new memories for storage “in the cloud” (as it were), but that kind of productive brain-research must wait. For now, what is being reported is investigations that are fully as foolish as it would be for us to reverse-engineer our television set in an effort to find Fall Scenethat guy who reads the six-o’clock news.

A decade ago, I read articles like these and found them funny. Now, though, all I can see is another decade sadly wasted. At its core, a belief-system is just a religion! Until mainstream science stops worshiping matter and returns to open-mindedly pursuing the truth, it can be of little further use to humankind.

Latest posts by Roberta Grimes (see all)

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

33 thoughts on “Missing Something Big

    1. Thank you, dear! This post was actually a last-minute choice – I had something else part-written – and then I read BOTH of those clueless articles in one sitting. That the scientific wrongheadedness continues to this extent really is frustrating!

  1. This so reminds me of the middle ages when new scientific facts were introduced but were dismissed even in the face of overwhelming evidence. People just can’t seem to let go of old beliefs even when they are proven to be no longer worthy of consideration.

    1. You’re so right, dear. And our problem now is that the whole structure of scientific inquiry worldwide is at this point built on the false edifice of materialism. We’re talking thousands of expensively-educated people’s entire careers! Even though at this point they all realize that there is actually no solid matter – nothing is solid, but everything is energy – they still must pay the mortgage and feed the children. So they are trying to keep this nonsense going, and hoping that the inevitable breakthrough happens after they have retired. I do feel for them! It must be terrible to know that your career is being wasted even while it is still ongoing, but at least by soon ending this charade we can save the next generation’s scientific careers. And think of all the good that science can do once it returns to the objective study of reality!

  2. Thank you for posting this article. You are sooooo very correct. In my life I have been gifted with out of body experiences and encounters with divine spirits. This includes when my late wife escorted me in a tiny bit of Heaven after she passed away. I have written three books on the subject the last one titled “The Divine Resting on My Shoulder”. Thank you again for writing about the real truth of creation.
    Blessings,
    Rich Ferguson

    1. Thank you for commenting and sharing, Rich – your story is wonderful! Each of us is doing what we can to help the truth to dawn over all the world… and what is glorious is that the dawning is indeed beginning now!

  3. You hit the nail on the head, Roberta, but I don’t see the atheists/materialists fading away anytime soon. That paradigm rules the major science journals and institutions and they get about 90% of the research funding, private and governmental, from what I’ve read.

    There are great non-materialists researchers out there, like Dr. Craig Hogan, Dr. Gary Schwartz, and others, but they’re constantly struggling to get funding for their vital afterlife research.

    But, as I said before, the lay public is on to this, with books, articles and other media on the afterlife and the paranormal becoming very popular and growing almost monthly.

    Thanks for keeping this topic of the short comings and failings of the materialists worldview in the forefront.

    P.S. You mentioned a while back that Dr. Craig Hogan was having health issues. Have those cleared up? Certainly hope so!

    1. Hello dear Michael! Yes indeed, Craig’s health has stabilized, and in fact I just have interviewed him for a Seek Reality podcast to air the week of Feb. 15. You’ll love it! He talks about the progress that is being made, and the even more exciting progress that is apparently about to be made, as they work to develop the North American Station through which, very soon, anyone with a computer will be able to communicate with dead loved ones. For free! And it all is happening fast! You’re right in saying that our Luddite materialist institutions will continue to fight for a bit longer, but when everyone knows that chatting with the dead is happening routinely and without mediums, the jig for them really will be up. That will be the beginning of the end of centuries of abject ignorance! I give it less than a decade now. The wait has been long, but now the end is in sight!

      1. That’s good news to read concerning Dr. Hogan. And, I’ll certainly be listening to that podcast. I’m sure you’ll keep us up to date on the communicating with the so-called “dead” via computer and where to access that when it’s ready.

        Also, I read an incisive critique of materialists the other day. The author pointed out that the materialists and the transhumanist branch are at war with our true selves and their true selves. They’ll run into a deadend at some point.

        1. We can only hope, dear!

          I have become convinced that the only way to break their wrongheaded stranglehold is to establish broad-based electronic communication with the dead that is so commonly used that their positions will be seen as ridiculous. And fortunately, I think it won’t be long in coming!

  4. Thank you Roberta. Your books and PodCast have springboarded my spiritual evolution. I really like how you talk about the failure of both Christianity and materialistic science both giving us a harmful and incomplete worldview. It helped me realize I needed to stop calling myself a Christian and that has freed me up tremendously.

    1. Oh my dear friend, you have no idea how happy your saying this has made my whole day! I’m thrilled to be able to be of help to you, and of course if you have questions or if I can be of any use to you at all, you know how to reach me.

      I have stopped calling myself a Christian, too. But darn it, we are following closely the genuine teachings of Christ! When you think about it, don’t we have a stronger claim to calling ourselves Christians than do the religionists?

  5. You always read these things about the brain storing memories but I really wonder what synapses have to do with it. A memory is of an experience. So has anyone ever explained how the brain takes an experience then digitizes the visual, tactile, olfactory, auditory, and taste sensations? Not to mention the thoughts and emotions involving the experience. How do you digitize a feeling of joy? How many bits or bytes does it take? What decides where in the brain all this digitized information goes? How does it get clocked into neurons then get read back? What decides when it gets read back.

    Then it’s been said the brain only remembers what’s important! Really? The only way it could do that is if it knew the future so it could decide what was going to be important.

    I issue the following challenge to the neuro -otics. Find the neurons in my brain that hold the memory of my first motorcycle ride. Read back all the aspects of that experience as listed above then describe it to me in full detail…………. all without asking me anything about it of course.

    1. Heh – “neuro-otics” – that’s a good one!

      Your comment is wonderful, dear Tom. You are absolutely right. People who have naively been assuming that researchers writing articles like the ones cited above actually know what they are talking about would be shocked to discover how clueless they are! Their talk of “synapses” comes from their observations of electrical and chemical activity in the brain, but in fact they have no clue what it is doing or what it means. All this effort put forth, and still they know nothing! You would think that fact by itself would give them some clue that they are on the wrong track, wouldn’t you?

  6. Roberta,

    The following comment from your blog is quite a common complaint for people whose beliefs are disconfirmed by science:

    “Until mainstream science stops worshiping matter and returns to open-mindedly pursuing the truth, it can be of little further use to humankind.”

    Science is obviously not committed to worshiping matter, as worshiping is a religious activity and not a scientific one. But more to the point, the study of electro-magnetism, quantum mechanics, dark energy, etc. clearly focus on topics which are not matter.

    You may be confused by the fact that science assumes a single, integrated world, as opposed to a “natural” world and a “supernatural” world, or that science used reductionist approaches. But it surely is clear, after a couple moments’ reflection, that this is not the same thing as assuming everything is matter. Consciousness, for example, is clearly not matter, even if scientific evidence suggests it is an emergent property of the brain.

    As somebody who is curious about these topics, I pop back to your site from time to time. But I must say, I find the tone of this and other blog posts you have written quite arrogant and condescending. You offer no evidence that you understand the true nature of scientific research or even what is the scientific enterprise. The comments on this site suggest you are preaching to the choir, so perhaps your readers aren’t bothered by your tone, but scientifically literate open-minded people would take you much more seriously, I think, if you acknowledged that you don’t really know much about science. I believe you admitted as much in your last book (I recall a quote about Science for Dummies, or something similar).

    You find the subjective claims of Eben Alexander compelling, or those of your medium friend who claims to talk to Thomas Jefferson who claims to talk to Jesus. But the fact that most scientists don’t find these compelling reflects how science works — it requires inter-subjectively verifiable evidence, and not simply claims of personal experience. There are many ways to test your belief system, and many have been tried, and the results have not been favorable.

    Your claim that every scientist knows that evidence has been claimed which supports dualism. They probably do. However, I suspect that they are more familiar with the overwhelming evidence which counters a dualistic world view. Are you aware of this?

    Best,
    Michael

    1. My dear Michael, there is no “dualism,” no “natural” and “supernatural” set of worlds, but rather there is one reality. And there is, as Max Planck assured us a century ago, “no matter as such.” Human minds are part of the great eternal Mind which is the only thing that exists, and which Max Planck and his fellow pioneering quantum physicists discovered a century ago. A WHOLE CENTURY AGO.

      I think that it’s lovely and quite worthwhile that mainstream scientists investigate this material universe. But the fact that even a century after overwhelming evidence that more is going on was presented to them, and while it continues to be presented to them with ever more urgency, they still continue to enforce a rigid materialist orthodoxy in university departments and in peer-reviewed journals is at this point frankly beyond the pale.

      I’m sorry if my impatience shows. But I am almost seventy years old, and I have spent my whole long life studying a vast field of developing afterlife science that is at least as real as anything that scientists are studying while they continue to stonewall it all. At this point, my patience is at an end.

      This determination of our most trusted institutions – both mainstream science and mainstream Christianity – to keep to their own narrow orthodox belief-systems will end only when we have a method of very good electronic communication with the dead in place, at which point everyone will know the truth. At that point, all this nonsense will end.

      Meanwhile, the true nature of reality is not being studied by scientists at all. As soon as fifty years from now, that fact will be looked upon with horror by people who understand just what all this willful scientific blindness has cost us in terms of pain and loss.

      In view of the fact that you so much disagree with me, I am grateful indeed that you come by, Michael! And very grateful for your comment. I’m not cranky with you, dear. Perhaps instead I am cranky all the more with these people who are misleading a good and bright man who really cares about the truth. I’m sending you a hug!

  7. Roberta,

    You may be aware of a logical fallacy called “argument from authority”, in which claims are justified not by appropriate evidence, but by reference to a purported expert. This is a fallacy because specific authority figures can, and are, frequently wrong in their beliefs.

    Your response seems to be just such an argument. You suggest you have done all this research, you are satisfied, so we should trust you. I’ve specifically asked you for examples of such compelling research, but you’ve declined to provide any.

    You cite Max Planck repeatedly as supporting your world view. The problem is, most physicists do not agree that quantum mechanisms implies what you believe it does. Given lack of evidence, why should science embrace your interpretation? You don’t provide evidence I’ve seen on this blog or your book (other than your personal testimony) so why jump to some conspiracy theory about the scientific process? Why not just accept that you are persuaded by evidence, largely personal and subjective, which does not move practicing scientists, in particular physicists who collectively know vastly more than Max Planck?

    By the way, I was curious what Max Planck said about “eternal minds”. A quick Google search on “Max Planck eternal minds” ranks your site as the top four hits! I guess you talk more about Max Planck talking about eternal minds than he did himself.

    Science does not accept your world view for the same reason it does not accept young-earth creationism. The evidence does not support it. Just saying it does fails to advance your argument.

    Best,
    Michael

    1. Dear Michael, I understand that you find your world view so comfortable that you are resistant to learning that perhaps the materialist scientific approach does not satisfactorily explain many things. Even honest scientists will say as much, but they must remain on the materialist reservation so they will be able to feed their children. Please be comforted in your beliefs, dear Michael! Until you feel the need to open your mind, I don’t have the time to try to persuade you. (Although I should mention that neither NDEs like Eben Alexander’s or my personal experiences are in any way evidential – why on earth would you have mentioned those two particular things above?)

      No one should take my word alone. You are absolutely right about that! Which is why I have included annotated bibliographies in my books, and I urge everyone who is interested in learning more to read liberally from what is a glorious canon of work assembled over the past century.

      The world is about to change under your feet, dear. Many people are coming to realize that, and I am hearing from more and more of them. There are already good communications being received from the dead electronically – the Wright Brothers have already flown, as it were – and within the next ten years there will be a viable North American Station to which anyone who wishes to speak with the dead will be able to connect by computer. Easy-peasy! And then, beloved Michael, the whole world will change….

  8. Roberta,

    Aren’t electronics and computers squarely in the realm of the “material” domain which you disparage as such a fruitless avenue for research?

    I understand you think you and some other people have a quasi-magical link to the spirit world, but why would you think the same connection is available to electronic circuits?

    I will look at your suggested bibliography. Thank you for pointed out that you had listed some of your sources there.

    Best,
    Michael

    1. Oh my dear, of course some of what scientists do is wonderful! My problem with them is purely that they won’t investigate things which they arbitrarily term to be “paranormal,” when in fact nothing is paranormal. We live in one continuous reality, and either something is bogus or it is genuine. If it is even possibly genuine, then for the scientific community to arbitrarily refuse to study it – as is the case now with so many things – is a disservice to all of humankind, and a particular disservice to science itself.

      There is no “quasi-magical link to the spirit world,” either, dear. Nothing whatsoever is magical, and sadly you only assume that some things are magical because you have put your trust in people who tell you that they are studying everything when in fact they study only phenomena which they deem to be within the material realm. What garbage! They are deceiving you, dear beloved Michael, as they are trying to deceive all the world. Evidence is strong now that we live in one continuous reality, of which the whole material universe may well make up less than ten percent. And it is a reality composed of energy. By now scientists know this, of course, but that realization has made no dent in their refusal to look beyond their narrow and self-limited realm.

      In the summer of 2014 there actually was a scientific symposium convened to discuss whether they could still call subatomic particles “particles” when they had discovered that what they had thought were particles are actually all vortices of energy. They decided that they still could call these vortices of energy “particles,” apparently for nostalgia’s sake. They’ll do anything, no matter how looney it is, to preserve their illusions for just a bit longer.

      Thank you for your interest, dear! If you want more lengthy or complex answers, of course, you know how to contact me ;-).

  9. Roberta,

    So that I can focus my research, what are the top few books in your bibliography in terms of providing scientific evidence for the afterlife, spirits, etc.? I assume there must be something published.

    Best,
    Michael

    1. Dear Michael, there is very little published scientific investigation into any of the evidence, which fact will be seen by our posterity as a shame and a horror. Fear of death is the base fear, and the narrow and depressed worldview that our sense of mortality engenders is the cause of so much of our suffering, from wars to man’s general inhumanity to man. The world at last is about to change, as people everywhere come to understand what actually is going on, but the mainstream scientific community will be the very last to acknowledge what is truly the ultimate good news!

      I hesitate to suggest that you read one or two books, dear. I have been there before. People who were desperate to comfort themselves that none of what I say is real have asked me for a recommendation or two, and – naively – I have given them some. They have ignored the forest, seized on one tree that looked to them to be misshapen, and gleefully declared that the whole science of afterlife studies must be altogether bogus. Frankly, dear, they behaved very much as you yourself did just above when you told me that Eben Alexander and my personal experiences must constitute the sum total of my evidence ;-).

      I am highly skeptical. I have spent a half-century – and especially the past 25 years – examining a tremendous amount of evidence, some of it only tangentially related to afterlife studies, so of course I cannot sum it all up for you here. But I will suspend my own disbelief for a moment, trust that you actually would like to learn something new, and give you four suggestions.

      In The Fun of Dying’s first appendix I recommend that you read Quantum Enigma, Your Eternal Self, and Life in the World Unseen – all of which are available for free on the internet. You might start there. Then you might read A Lawyer Presents the Evidence for the Afterlife by Victor and Wendy Zammit. For the past 15 years the Zammits have posted and advertised a fully-funded million-dollar prize for the first person who can prove that all the evidence they discuss is bogus; and they have had a lot of inquiries and some efforts made by debunkers, but since of course you can’t prove the truth to be false, their prize is safe.

      It doesn’t take much evidence, dear Michael, to give the lie to materialism. ONE genuine “white crow,” as early researcher William James famously said, is sufficient evidence to prove that not all crows are black!

  10. Roberta,

    Thank you. I will look into the three books you mention. I’ve already spent some time on the Zammit site and was not particularly impressed. A million dollar prize to prove everything they discuss is bogus? Please.

    I don’t expect the books you mention to exhaust or fully explore the topic of course. But I do hope they provide good examples for what is considered good evidence for the paranormal. I am especially curious given that you seem to discount personal testimony, which strikes me as the vast majority of evidence I’ve heard.

    Michael

    1. Dear Michael, forgive me, but the Zammits nor I have no particular interest in impressing you. Steeped in the notion of a clockwork universe as you are, there is a tremendous gulf between what you believe and what a vast battery of abundant and consistent evidence indicates is actually going on, so your first encounters with the evidence are likely to be off-putting. If you want to learn anything in this field, you are going to have to get past that.

      I think it’s interesting that you disparage a million-dollar prize when you are such a professed skeptic. The Zammits’ protocol calls for an independent process and independent judges. If it’s all nonsense, then demonstrating that it’s nonsense should be worth the effort when the reward is so substantial.

      I do not at all discount personal testimony! The thing that first convinced me that I must be onto something, decades ago, was that when I read hundreds of purported communications from the dead that had been received through deep-trance mediums before 1950 in both the UK and the US, they all were describing precisely the same physics, the same process, the same pastimes, all the very same details, even though no two accounts were even similar. All those people had to be in the same enormous and complex place! OMG, I think this must be real. So then I began my broader research, which – even more amazingly – kept producing details that fit with what the dead were telling us. Indeed yes, personal testimony is useful, but only when it is carefully vetted and copying is impossible and there is a great deal of it to compare.

  11. Dear Roberta,

    Tom Campbell’s trilogy, ” MY BIG TOE” might have been a good scientific source for Michael.

    Like you, I can’t wait for the day, when the elitist scientists understand…

    Love your work,
    Armanda

    1. Dear Roberta,

      Tom Campbell’s trilogy, ” MY BIG TOE” might have been a good scientific source for Michael.

      Like you, I can’t wait for the day, when the elitist scientists understand…

      Love your work,
      Armanda

  12. I would strongly suggest that Michael indulge himself in the research of the Scole Experiments! Or how about looking into Frederick Myers Cross Correspondence letters! Oh, and so many more examples, thousands more!
    Wouldn’t it be ironic if Michael checked out a ‘reading’ with a True Medium, the top ones being listed on the Internet!
    How can anyone describe a box when they live in one?

    1. My dear Barbara, “How can anyone describe a box when they live in one?” may be the most profound thing ever said. Thank you for that!

      I am told that a war is already beginning in many university departments between those who insist on enforcing materialism and those who have had sufficient exposure to “paranormal” phenomena that they think it might be time to begin to investigate what might be going on beyond their scientific box. It seems to be mostly older physicists and other scientists protecting their careers, pitted against younger grad students and post-docs who can almost smell their 2060 Nobel Prizes. My friend believes that the older folks will fight the truth hard! He can see the equivalent of WW III coming. But as Max Planck said, “Science advances by deaths. He might have added “… “and retirements.” Give it another decade or so, and I think this tide will be turning our way!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.