A REVIEW OF "CONSCIOUSNESS BEYOND LIFE" BY PIM VAN LOMMEL

This is an excellent book; it is well written and very informative. The subtitle is "The Science of Near-Death Experience."  This is to be understood in the broadest context, since much of the book is how a new understanding of consciousness can give  insights into what might be going on when one has a near-death experience.

The book makes you feel very Socratic.  The evidence, I think, is still out regarding the nature of near-death experiences, but Dr. van Lommel makes a good case for questioning existing paradigms, namely the materialist reductionist view so prevalent among scientists today.  The author has read volumes about quantum theory and the scientific study of consciousness, including the view that consciousness is not limited to the brain; the book contains ample footnotes and suggestions for further reading.

One of the sections of the book has a quote by the 17th century German mystic, Angelus Silesius: "I do not know what I am and I am no longer what I know."  That's how you feel after reading this book, and it's a feeling of wonder.  (The book is filled with profound quotations from scientists, philosophers and physicists, etc. which are a delight in themselves.)

Dr. van Lommel is an eminent Dutch cardiologist (the original title of the book is Eindeloos Bewustzijn, Endless Consciousness.)  After successfully resuscitating a victim of cardiac arrest, the author, at that time at the very beginning of his career,  was surprised to discover that the patient, upon regaining consciousness, was disappointed.  He had been to a beautiful place and had not wished to leave it.  (This response is quite typical for those who have "returned" from a near-death experience, or NDE.)  Dr. van Lommel later read about this subject and became fascinated by its basic paradox: how can one have such profound and lucid experiences while the brain is shut down?  He began asking his patients who had recovered from cardiac arrest and was astonished that about 20% of them had a NDE.

A chapter of the book deals with a prospective study (that is, one not based on chart reviews, but conducted on cases as they happen.)  His study was published in the Lancet, in 2001.  Yes, Dr. van Lommel is a respected scientist.  Unlike others who claim that they have proof  that consciousness can be independent of the brain, the author states there is merely evidence suggesting such a view.  He leaves us with no doubt, though, on which side of this debate his intuition leads him.  This is quite interesting, since Dr. van Lommel states that he was an ardent materialist before he did his research.

I'm not fully convinced, but I think Dr. van Lommel might be right.  My reasoning is as follows.  The two most astonishing things about existence are how the universe originated and the fact that we are conscious beings.  We know a lot about how the universe came about, but it still remains shrouded in mystery.  This mystery is intimately involved with quantum physics.  The universe started as a very small particle, perhaps a so-called virtual particle, which means that quantum gravity, which is a complete mystery at the present time,  was involved.  As Niels Bohr stated: "If you're not shocked by quantum physics, you don't understand it."  All interpretations of quantum physics involve conscious observers who can apparently cause, during the course of an experiment, a photon probability wave to manifest itself either as a wave or a particle.  Some scientists go as far as to assert, as did the ancient Hindus, that consciousness creates reality.  Another mysterious fact about quantum physics is quantum entanglement, where communication between entangled particles occurs instantaneously, that is,  faster than the speed of light.

Yes, quantum physics is weird.  But there's something even stranger than quantum phsysics and the origin of the universe: consciousness.  Since we have some understanding of the universe, its vastness, as it were, fits into our minds which are thus even vaster.  It is thus reasonable to assume that consciousness will prove to be even stranger than quantum physics.

Since the basis of quantum physics lies in immaterial  probablity waves that are neither waves nor particles, why should the basis of consciousness be merely material?  A good question!

Dr. van Lommel quotes Bohr who believed that quantum physics and consciousness are complimentary phenomena.  Quantum physics has to do with inert matter; if you do enough experiments you always get the same statistical spread.  Consciousness has to do with living beings and is thus non-linear and much more complex.  Bohr believed that consciousness will never be completely understood, and, despite sanguine materialists, I think he was right.

The author presents intriguing views from a variety of researchers and philosophers--some of them Nobel Prize winners--according to them, consciousness is not limited to the brain.  Roger Penrose, for instance, argues that quantum entanglement also applies to the brain.  The resultant super-consciousness exists as wave functions and can be everywhere at once.  This non-local consciousness is what has been called cosmic consciousness; Jung's collective unconscious also applies here. A NDE might involve this type of consciousness, which becomes manifest when the waking or body consciousness is suppressed by cessation of brain function.

One theory states that memory and consciousness form a sort of electromagnetic hologram beyond the brain.  This theory has remarkable resonance with Stephen Hawking's research about black holes.  It seems that the law of the conservation of information is not violated with black holes, which Hawking has demonstrated.  The information is contained in the event horizon, the border between the rest of the universe and the area of no return, beyond which the black hole's tremendous gravity allows nothing, not even light,  to escape.  A hologram!  This has led to the theory that the entire universe might be a holographic projection of some very distant event horizon.  This provides an astonishing parallel between the possible hologram of consciousness and the possible hologram of the universe.  Once again, consciousness and quantum physics meet.

Dr. van Lommel provides leading scientific views about how non-local consciousness originates.  The most intriguing theories have to do with emergence due to coherent spin and resonance.  I invite readers to consult the book for details.

I do have some caveats, however.  I don't think phenomena such as outer-body experiences have been proven to result independently of the brain.  As the author states, more research needs to be done.

But NDEs are indeed fascinating.  It remains a scientific enigma that lucid experiences can occur while the brain is completely shut down.  The book gives proof that the NDEs occur not during descent or during recovery, but after clinical death occurs.  It is also fascinating that those who experience a NDE never encounter anyone living--There is never a child begging mommy to return to her body.  Another remarkable aspect is that virtually every NDE experiencer becomes, as it were, a Hindu: everything is connected in a realm of universal love and wisdom.

The NDE is almost always transformative; fear of death, for instance, usually vanishes, or at least diminishes, after the experience. Those that had a NDE, as an eight-year follow-up indicates, tend to become less affiliated with a  specific religion, yet almost always become more spiritual.  This suggests the possibility of belief in an afterlife that does not include God.  Penrose, for instance, who believes that consciousness does not end with death, is an atheist.  The author writes about a nurse who had a NDE; she says that she has seen too much suffering to believe in a benevolent deity.  After her experience, however, she is convinced that there is an afterlife.

The author believes that contact with the consciousness of the deceased, deathbed visions, etc, are real possibilities.  As much as I'd like to believe it, I have reservations.  Seances and ouija boards?  I think it is better to keep our feet on the ground, which I intend to do with mine, unless I am confronted with incontrovertible evidence that Auntie Lou continues to badger me from the beyond.

If non-local consciousness proves to be a reality, it would be a major paradigm shift for science.  I am willing to admit that such a view is possible, perhaps even likely; something very mysterious is going on, no doubt about it.  Hamlet, the supreme embodiment of the mystery of consciousness in Western literature, famously informed his scholarly friend Horatio that things are much stranger than his friend's philosophy permits.  If Horatios among us remain unconvinced, I suggest that they read this excellent book.

THE QUANTUM BELIEVER

I am a quantum believer.  Do I believe in God?  Am I an atheist?  Neither.  I repeat: I am a quantum believer. Yes, I will explain--or give you at least give some indication of what this enigmatic "faith" is.

Let's deal with the quantum part first.  As you may know, a photon will either manifest itself as a particle or a wave, depending on the experiment you devise and your observation of the results.  If you look for a photon with a detector, you will find a particle.  If you let photons, one at a time, pass through  one or the other of two slits onto a photoelectric plate, you will discover that each  photon passed through both slits. On the plate you will find an interference pattern, caused by photons which have manifested themselves as waves.  The two aspects are complementary; the photons will behave either as waves or particles but never both.    The type of experiment and your conscious observation of the results determine the results.  (Prior to this, a photon is a probability wave, a superposition of both states.)  Reality is thus connected to consciousness.  This is called the quantum enigma.  Nobody really understands the enigma--the probability wave can never be directly examined, but whatever is going on, well, goes on.

Now for the analogy. In  a quantum believer, belief and unbelief exist in silence in a superpostion state.  This state is too profound to be classified as either belief or disbelief; it is Belief with a capital B.  For the quantum believer, you can cause either the particle--atheism--or the wave--belief, to become manifest in our workaday world according to the question you ask.  Let us designate the quantum state as Consciousness--cosmic consciousness perhaps--and the atheist precipitate as Thomas l, and the believer as Thomas ll.  (Any name, of course, will do.)

Much as a scientist sets up either a particle or interference experiment, you ask Thomas some questions about faith to see what beliefs or unbeliefs appear.

For instance, if Thomas were Christian, you might ask:

Do you believe Jesus Christ is literally the only begotten Son of God?

If Thomas were Jewish, you might ask:

Did G-d  literally give Moses the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai?

Or if Thomas were Muslim:

Do you believe the Koran is literally the word of Allah?

Of course not! If you ask such questions, Thomas l is precipitated, an adamant atheist.  He might rather rudely refer to such beliefs as SCFA, Santa Claus for Adults.

And if you ask the question,

How can God be both omnipotent and omniscient and allow the unfairness, suffering and sadness which are so widely distributed in this world?

Sometimes Thomas l will precipitate and answer:  God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient; He doesn't even exist.

But sometimes you'll get Thomas ll: God's omnipotence and omniscience are merely symbols and are admittedly ridiculous if taken literally.  Ancient peoples felt a grandeur inside while the grandeur that they witnessed outside was that of their so-called omnipotent and omniscient kings. Thus they attribute these adjectives to God.  ("God" is nothing more--or less-- than a symbol for this grandeur, consciousness, specifically cosmic consciousness.  One of the truths this grandeur reveals is that all is connected; all is one.  It also reveals that the only path to It is wisdom/love's. It can provide us with the greatest experience we can ever have; in this context, omnipotent and omniscient refer to the mysterium tremendum et fascinans, the overwhelming mystery, for which those two adjectives are literally woefully inadequate.)

Now suppose you ask a differnt question:

If literal belief in Jesus as the Son of God, is ridiculous; if believe in an all-powerful God in the face of suffering is riciulous; therefore, isn't faith ridiuclous?

Ask this question, and the wave, Thomas ll, becomes manifest.  Thomas ll, the closest of the two Thomases to the internal wavefunction, replies that faith, experienced and understood correctly, is the most important thing-nonthing of all.

And just what is it?

Thomas ll is silent.  It can't be put into words; it is too profound.

If it can't be put into words, how can we be sure it exists?

It can be experienced.  It can be hinted at with words and with music.  It is poetry, not prose.  As Emily Dickinson wrote: if I read a book and it makes my body so cold no fire ever can warm me, I know that is poetry. She understood.

Whitman understood.  "Do I contradict myself?  Very well then, I contradict myself.  I am large, I contain multitudes."  The source of this largeness lies within, where all contradictions meet in unity; the inner reality is the coincidentia oppositorum.

Simon Weil also understood; she believed we could remain content with the prose world but for two factors: beauty and suffering.  Suffering destroys our prosy complacencies and keeps us searching.  Beauty gives us a few hints of utter transcendence.  For those who know these two aspects of life--and Thomas l and Thomas ll is well acquainted with both--Silence really is golden.

Physics teaches us that we can never directly experience the quantum enigma.  We can  try to explore the possibility wave with elementary particles, namely photons and other such particles.  Whenever  we attempt this. however., the system is disturbed and we get either a particle or a wave, never the hidden quantum mystery.  

Similarly, prose questions, as it were,  will disturb cosmic consciousness into worldly consciousness; you will wind up with either a Thomas l or a Thomas ll; you will never get One, the original, internal, enigmatic state that is independent of the body. (You can, however, get hints of this One, enough to quiet both Thomases. Many people, alas! remain either in the the atheist or fundamentalist state for their entire lives, and keep on talking and talking.)  It is said that those who think they understand the quantum enigma are  greatly mistaken.  Similarly, those who think they can explain consciousness, cosmic consciousness, are perhaps even more mistaken.  Those who think they have It most certainly don't.  

Jesus, a very wise man, understood this as is evident in the following parable.  (This most important parable is contained in a non-canonical Gospel, the Gospel of Thomas.  What irony!  One of Jesus's most important parables is completely ignored by mainstream Christianity!)

Jesus said: The kingdom of the [Father] is like a woman carrying a jar full of meal. While she was walking [on a] distant road, the handle of the jar broke (and) the meal poured out behind her on the road. She was unaware, she had not noticed the misfortune. When she came to her house, she put the jar down (and) found it empty

She thought she had everything.  That's why she lost It.

One last point: The prosaic Thomas l and the poet Thomas ll are two aspects of the same. individual.  The inner reality, however--as the woman in the parable eventually found out-- is not possessed by any individual alone.  It is yours as well as mine and is the same for both of us.  My Self is your Self.  This is the greatest mystery of all, the source of all religion. 

Oh what nonsense!

It isn't.  It is. Prose will never get It.

I repeat: depending on the question you ask me,  Thomas l or Thomas ll, neither of whom possess the answer,  will become manifest.  

The question I ask you, therefore,  is this: why waste time by questioning them?  Read great poetry.  Listen to great music.  Meditate. Expose yourself to the suffering of the world and try your best to comfort the afflicted.  Then you will know what I'm talking/not talking about.  Then you will know who you are.

  

THERE GOES MY COLA

President Obama has averted the budget crisis--that is, it has been postponed for two months.  A welcome increase in tax revenues from the wealthy has been agreed upon, but it isn't nearly enough.  True, the President  probably couldn't have gotten a better deal, but that doesn't change the fact that the deal is definitely not ideal.

The showdown has been merely postponed; the far-right hand has been strengthened.  There will have to be 110 billion in cuts, half from domestic spending and half from defense spending.  And the President has already said that he is very willing to compromise.

There goes my Cola.

The Cola, as you probably know, is the cost of living adjustment for Social Security recipients.  It is based on the CPI, the consumer price index.  I feel it in by bones--my older, Social Security-receiving bones--that the present Cola will be negotiated away, "saving" billions.  The new Cola will most likely be based upon the so-called chained CPI, which is always lower than the CPI. (In 2012 the CPI was 1.8%, while the chained CPI was 1.6%--Social Security recipients, however, will only get a 1.7% in 2013.)  

Here's how the chained CPI works.  Say you're a business executive and want to buy a Lambergini; you notice that it costs a lot more than it did during the previous year to buy one.  So you settle for a Lexus.  If enough executives do that, the effect of the inflated price of a Lambergini on the CPI is lowered, since not as many people are buying them anymore.

As you might have guessed, the world of chained CPI is not the world of retirees. Even the (unchained) CPI underestimates the effect of inflation on retirees, since health care costs have been rising at a higher rate than that of the CPI.  What are retirees supposed to do?  Instead of owning--with monthly payments--an automobile that is not fancy but at least runs; are we to trade in our trusted vehicle for a jalopy with a Ryan voucher?  Not a present option, thank God.  So, thanks to the greed of the health care industry, we keep the same trusted vehicle, but must pay monthly payments that rise every year at a rate more than the rate of inflation

Republicans have won the debate.  We are in the midst of a job crisis, not a debt crisis.  Even the President agrees that cuts--in addition to all the previous ones agreed upon--have to be made during this period of high unemployment.  Cuts that make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

There goes my Cola. What will tycoons say?  Don't worry.  Be happy.  Watch TV--especially Fox News.  And, of course, have a Coke!

For one third of social security recipients, 90% of income comes from their monthly check.  For one half of recipients, over 50% of their income comes from Social Security.  These facts have not prevented a right-leaning New York Times columnist for blaming much of our budget problems on "boomer greed."  Boomer greed, indeed.

Republicans have convinced the public that Social Security is a major budgetary problem.  It isn't.  Any shortfall can be easily fixed.  (The Social Security payroll tax is figured on 83% of income; it used to be 90%.  Income above $113,000 isn't taxed at all.  A few minor adjustments and the system is solvent.)

Social Security payments are only 5% of GDP.  They are expected to rise only to 6% by 2030, then will fall after that.  (I have heard a Republican claim that we can't afford to pay for seniors who will take benefits for thirty years; the average number of years people receive benefits is, however, only 16.)

Boomer greed!  True, some recipients are more solidly in the middle class thanks to their monthly check.  But most of the money received is spent, stimulating the economy.  Many recipients, after all, have to partially or even fully support underemployed or unemployed children and grandchildren whom the system has so egregiously failed.

Social Security is not the problem.  The problem is that one percent of the country has 40% of the wealth.  The problem is that the wealth of the richest Americans is 288 times the median wealth;  in Germany it is only a factor of 10.  The problem is that a CEO in America earns 475 times more than an average worker, while in Germany the factor is 12.

We live in a winner-take-all society, and the winners, you guessed it, are making the laws.  That's the problem.

Our democracy is seriously threatened by the second gilded age, the era  in which we are living. Anything that counters this problem is, in my opinion, very much welcome.  Social Security is progressive; it strengthens the middle class and helps the poor.  It is precisely for this reason why the Republicans hate it so much.
.
I will console myself with the fact that President Obama just might not cut Social Security benefits--Some consolation!  If he doesn't agree to cut Social Security, he will probably agree to make unfair cuts in Medicaid and/or in Medicare.

The one percent will most likely continue to have their way

Don't worry.  Be happy.  And, of course, have a Coke!

THE (NOT SO BIG) DEAL--The Senate's Quick Fix, Jan. 1, 2013

I'm writing this on the morning of Jan. 1, 2013.  The fiscal cliff has (possibly) been averted--The Senate has finally negotiated a deal, far from a grand bargain.  (It has yet to pass the Congress, but, pundits say, most likely will.)  Should we be ecstatic?  No.  We fell over the so-called cliff last night.  This morning we find ourselves on a precipice fifty feet or so below the one we fell from.  The abyss still looms beneath us.

Before I say a few words about the agreement, I want to make my position clear.  I consider myself a pragmatist; I am no ideologue.  I try my best to view the political mess in the United States with impartial eyes, not jaundiced ones.  That said, I readily admit that at present my view is more or less in accord with the view of Democrats, since the Republicans have moved so far to the right

One of the most serious problems in the United States, as I see it, is the inequality of wealth.  One percent of the population has about 40% of the wealth; half the population has only one percent of the wealth.  Income inequality has risen in most countries, but not like it has here.  (In the United States, the top one percent has a net worth 288 times that of the median; in Germany, for instance, where income inequality has also risen, the top one percent is less than ten times richer than the median.)  If this inequality continues, not to mention if it continues to increase, our democracy will be seriously threatened.  Do we want the rich to live in gated communities, islands in a sea of poverty, with each side terrorizing the other, as they do in some Latin American countries?  Already, America is no longer the proverbial "land of opportunity" where hard work is sure to guarantee one's passage from poverty to wealth.  Upward mobility is much more likely to occur in other industrialized countries than in the United States.  Our once shining identity is getting very rusty.

I don't expect life to be fair.  Those more endowed with talent and opportunity should--if we want growth to continue--and will be very much richer than those less talented and less lucky.  When the income inequality becomes so great, however, as to threaten our democracy, we're in trouble.  And I do believe that is what is happening now.

The bipartisan agreement raises taxes  to 39.5% from 35% for individuals earning more than 400,000 and couples earning more than 450,000.  (Remember both groups will be paying the lower rate on the first 400 thousand or 450 thousand, respectively.  Yes, the one percent will be paying more, but I don't think this will change the statistics much. (Since the Great Recession ended in 2008, 81% of the recovery went to the wealthy; this will probably continue.)

Unemployment insurance will continue for another year; this is good but will not improve inequality much either.

The Alternative Minimum Tax will be fixed permanently--This tax was passed to prevent the wealthy from lowering their taxes too much via numerous deductions.  However, it was never corrected for inflation, which has resulted in its current application to many middle-class tax payers, which the law never intended to do.  This will help, but  inequality will probably continue to rise.

The estate tax will rise to 35% (from 30%) on estates more than $5 million--The Democrats wanted it to rise to 45%.  Higher estate taxes help prevent the propagation of wealth from generation to generation, thus helping to level the playing field somewhat and thus encouraging upward mobility.  In my opinion, the 35% rate is too low--even the 45% rate is too low.

The worst part of the deal is that it is not a deal.  The 110 billion in cuts, half from defense and half from domestic programs, is merely postponed.  That means in two months a deal must be reached or the cuts begin in earnest.  It is almost a sure thing that President Obama will make  cuts in Medicare and Social Security, thus assuring that inequality will continue.

Republicans have won the debate.  When Democrats try to address inequality, the Republicans accuse them of class warfare, when, in fact, that is precisely the war Republicans have been waging.  Most Americans believe that the current crisis is one of national debt, when it is in fact a job crisis and, thus, an inequality crisis. Republicans claim to be budget hawks, but the cuts they recommend are only those that would make inequality worse.  Regarding taxes and defense they are budget chickens,  always intent on making the current pecking order worse.

What does the conservative within me--that person does exist--have to say?  There is a debt problem, but this problem should not be addressed while the economy is so weak; things, as experience has shown, will only be made worse.  However, the sad fact remains that in times of prosperity one ignores the changes that should be made.

How does the view look, now that this stop-gap arrangement has given us a slightly better perspective?  Yes, our ditzy lawmakers have made us feel slightly less dizzy--but the firm ground on which we should be walking on is still hundreds and hundreds of feet below.