Matt Lambeau, Tree of Self-Evident Truth |546|

I was glad to see tomz is an active member still. Tom, what I found fascinating in psychologist Meredith Miller's work (#20) is her demonic playbook thesis. We all know of the talking points playbook of msn. Well, she discerns a deeper demonic playbook at work in the plandemic: https://meredithmiller.substack.com/p/theyre-all-following-the-same-playbook?s=r

Her biblical quotes may make her seem to be a Christian, but they are instead coming from her role as a psychologist.

I have seen many offhand references to demons controlling globalists (e.g. , Gordon White), but few in depth elaborations such as Meredith's.

"Currently, the psychopaths directing the world stage (and the...supernatural... evil forces moving them behind the scenes) are desperately trying to maintain control over the minds and hearts of the people. "

Much of her solution thinking pertains to Lambeau's self-evident truth teaching. THANK YOU, Alex, for tihs interview.
 
Last edited:
This is where I think you go wrong. As soon as you acknowledge any sort of genuine psi - consciousness working at a distance or accessing the future (for example) you have gone outside of traditional science. While you are strictly within orthodox science, it is reasonable to use Occam's razor to choose any explanation of a phenomenon like (apparent) reincarnation to avoid the idea that mind continue after death. However, once you incorporate ideas like super-psi, you are not inside traditional science, and it is much more dangerous to rely on Occam's Razor. So for example, is it simpler to explain apparent reincarnation in terms of a disembodied spirit entering a new body, or in terms of a lot of high powered psi effects that work to garner enough information to make B believe he was previously A? I would claim that once you are outside orthodox science, the first explanation is simpler and should be chosen.

Well my tentative model of reality assumes mind is always non-physical (which explains the HPC) but can couple with matter via the collapse of the wave function. Obviously I am not alone in thinking that way! The physicist Henri Stapp has written extensively about this concept.

Frequently in science deciding that something is totally inexplicable in one framework, has nudged people into another framework. The fact that Julie Beischel's results seem inexplicable tells you that your mental view of reality is inadequate.

Earlier I gave you the example from chemistry just before QM. Classically there is no explanation for atoms or molecules having discrete properties.


People have puzzled over the mind-body problem for a long time. The concept of a mental (non-material) world coupled to the physical world via the collapse of the wave function is a plausible way to think about this problem. Henry Stapp points out that you don't actually need any extension of QM to achieve this coupling. His concept is that if you observe a QM system (with some weak perturbations) very frequently, then you can effectively lock it into its current eigenstate. If you stop observing the system, it will evolve because of the perturbations. You can use this to couple the non-physical and the physical, but he points out at one place that there is no real reason to assume that consciousness can't collapse a wave function to a chosen eigenstate.

With that sort of framework, you can explain a lot of evidence without contrived explanations in which things appear to be one thing but are really something else. Remember, those kids who claim to be reincarnated, talk about "My previous mother", "My house", "I felt very ill, and then .....". Calling that access to some stored information is a very contrived explanation.

David
Like I was saying, your perspective works fine if you can justify arbitrarily ignoring the vast amount of data showing how our biological systems affect our minds, and consequently our personality.

You also seem to have glossed over the fact that memory is distinctly different from personhood. You as a person recall memories of your own. Those who claim to be reincarnated appear to be accessing the memories of someone else in addition to their own unique memories. This doesn't make them the same person who originally possessed those memories. At best, it's some sort of unexplained memory transfer.

It's a leap in logic to say, "I remember being ( insert example ), and therefore I am that person." It would be more accurate to say, "I have these memories of ( insert example ), but I don't know how I got them."

It seems you've also glossed over the logic that if the mind ( consciousness or whatever other more mystical name you want to give it ) is completely separate from the physical, then by definition, there can be no physical interface with it, in which case our physical selves would be completely unaffected by it. Simply put — if it can interact with the physical, it must be physical in nature.
 
Last edited:
Like I was saying, your perspective works fine if you can justify arbitrarily ignoring the vast amount of data showing how our biological systems affect our minds, and consequently our personality.
Well do you think the inventors of the TV analogy were really ignorant of that?

Inevitably I have to use an analogy.

Imagine if you were remote controlling a robot somewhere on earth (to avoid the extra complication of the time delay). You would sit at your desk and run the robot, watching and maybe listening through its senses. You might even use a VR setup so you were immersed completely in the world of the robot.

Now imagine that something damaged the robot slightly. Maybe the image wasn't clear, or it was shaking, and maybe sometimes your commands would be accepted while sometimes they would be ignored or cause some sort of diagnostic. You would soon become emotional. Some combination of frustration, anger, self doubt, etc would creep in. Not only would you feel emotional, but the robot under your control might start to appear to act emotionally as viewed by others.

If you persisted with a badly damaged robot, the resulting robot behaviour might appear totally deranged.

I am sure the real split between the mind and the brain is more complex than that, but not fundamentally dissimilar. As a species we seem remarkably adept at entering other realities, when we read a book, watch a play or film, use a VR headset, etc. I rather think that is telling us something important.
You also seem to have glossed over the fact that memory is distinctly different from personhood. You as a person recall memories of your own. Those who claim to be reincarnated appear to be accessing the memories of someone else in addition to their own unique memories. This doesn't make them the same person who originally possessed those memories. At best, it's some sort of unexplained memory transfer.
Well aren't we back at my Occam's Razor(OC) point (above). By postulating that someone is accessing someone else's memories you are either postulating some form of (extremely effective) psi, or you are suggesting fraud. Assuming you aren't just trying to call all these cases fraudulent, then you have stepped outside conventional science.

If you have an explanation that uses phenomena like psi, you can't really assert that survival of consciousness after death is less simple (and can thus be thrown out using OC) than some kind of psi explanation - reading the mind of someone who knew the deceased for example.
It's a leap in logic to say, "I remember being ( insert example ), and therefore I am that person." It would be more accurate to say, "I have these memories of ( insert example ), but I don't know how I got them."

Well we might have been made anew each morning with memories from yesterday that we falsely assume to be our own memories!

It seems you've also glossed over the logic that if the mind ( consciousness or whatever other more mystical name you want to give it ) is completely separate from the physical, then by definition, there can be no physical interface with it, in which case our physical selves would be completely unaffected by it. Simply put — if it can interact with the physical, it must be physical in nature.

But physics introduced the idea that a wave function ultimately collapses as it is observed (something that ultimately requires consciousness). I am aware there are other interpretations of QM, but it is probably best to use an interpretation that goes back to the origins of QM, rather than extremely fanciful interpretations such as Everet's Many Worlds interpretation or whatever. Read Henry Stapp if you want full details of how the interface operates, or look up the "Quantum Zeno Effect".

The fact that there is a weak coupling between mind and body does not preclude the mind from continuing after the body dies, and maybe re-coupling to physical matter elsewhere.

I think science works best when it is a bit more pragmatic. Ruling out phenomena that seem to exist because some version of logic suggests they should not be possible, is a dangerous way to operate. It would have been extremely easy to argue (no doubt some did) that a particle can't have wave-like properties. It might even have been possible to take some of the early photographs of interference fringes and explained them away in some add-hoc way. I have had almost no personal experience of psi, but I am willing to accept that others do, particularly when there are experiments that have been repeated over and over again, that show some of these phenomena exist.

David
 
Actually I do acknowledge all the relevant evidence on the other side of this question — at least that I'm aware of ( and I've waded through a lot of it ). We just haven't had the time to discuss it.

Waded through tons of that and other stuff as well — same conclusion

What you describe as reincarnation is at best only some sort of information acquisition by another person. It is not a continuity of personhood.

That would depend on what flavor of physicalism you subscribe to. As I mentioned before, I see all phenomena of nature as physical, and that by extension includes consciousness. But even if we don't go that far, logically, anything non-physical in a model that separates the physical from the non-physical would by definition not be able to interact with the physical, and therefore would be undetectable. However because consciousness is detectable by our physical systems, it must be a physical phenomenon — just one that we don't have an explanation for ( like a lot of other things ).

Regardless of whatever evidence Julie as accrued, it still only amounts to some unexplained acquisition of information by a living person. Assigning afterlives as the explanation, is a huge leap in logic.

Not exactly. I suggest that everything, including consciousness, is part of the physical within a philosophical version of physicalism that equates the physical with all phenomena of nature, along with all the rest e.g. gravitation, EM and nuclear forces. Within that model, different kinds of phenomena manifest themselves in different ways depending on how things are arranged.

So it's not simply the case that there are mental phenomena, and non-mental phenomena. There are all sorts of phenomena. Arbitrarily dividing it up so as to create a dualistic distinction is just playing with labels and semantics.

Like I said, if people don't take into account all the material phenomena associated with our existence as well as the non-material, then they're wilfully ignoring very important facets of what constitutes our personhood, and are therefore self-deluding themselves about continuity of personhood following the death of our body — if that's not a good reason, then I'm not sure what is.

I agree that what most people call "consciousness" and "physicality" must actually be the same kind of stuff. The hard problem means that the apparent duality is hard to reconcile. But if everything is the same kind of stuff there is no hard problem. The only meaningful question then becomes whether that stuff is physical or mental.

Go one way, and one needs to explain how consciousness emerges from matter. Go the other, one needs to explain how the perception of matter arises from consciousness. One thing's plain: "matter" and "consciousness" interact bidirectionally. Why should they not if they are just different appearances of the same kind of stuff?

To my way of thinking, it's easier and more parsimonious to accept that consciousness is fundamental. If one starts from physicalism, it seems significantly more complicated to me: the idea of consciousness, as we experience it, emerging from matter needs to be explained. But no one has any sensible ideas about how to do that.
Like I was saying, your perspective works fine if you can justify arbitrarily ignoring the vast amount of data showing how our biological systems affect our minds, and consequently our personality.

As I've mentioned earlier, conventional ideas of cause and effect may be incorrect: just a way of modelling what's going on. It may not be that biological systems affect minds, so much as that "biological systems" and the "mind" and how they interact are the appearance of mental processes occurring in universal consciousness. To these processes we artificially apply concepts of cause and effect. "Cause and effect" may inherently signal a dualistic mode of thinking, as if biological systems and the mind are entirely different in quality. I personally don't think they are.
It's a leap in logic to say, "I remember being ( insert example ), and therefore I am that person." It would be more accurate to say, "I have these memories of ( insert example ), but I don't know how I got them."

As I've also mentioned, I agree that having so-called reincarnation memories doesn't imply that those memories come from a previous reincarnation of ourselves. I believe we do reincarnate, but at birth each of us is a tabula rasa upon which life's experiences will impact and offer opportunities to evolve. It's just that some children, for whatever reason, have access to information about others' lives and mistakenly interpret it as their own in a previous existence.
 
Well aren't we back at my Occam's Razor(OC) point (above)?
David
I think that if we invoke Occam's Razor, then the simplest explanation is that we are autonomous individuals, and that unexplained "memories" are simply the recall of information acquired by some unexplained means. The whole reincarnation bit is what complicates it.

More importantly, even if the information has been transferred from some deceased person, you still end-up with your same objection, and nothing about the situation makes the person who possesses the information the same person as the deceased. They are still completely different persons, each with their own set of unique experiences. Transfer of information ≠ continuity of personhood following death.
 
Last edited:
Physical = Measurable.
Non-Physical = Won’t ever be measured, ever.
-Rob
Technically, something non-physical could be measured by some non-physical measurement system composed of the same non-physical stuff — whatever that would be.

However, if the physical and non-physical are by their nature entirely separate, then no physical system ( including our bodies ) would be capable of measuring ( or detecting ) the non-physical stuff, including consciousness ( or whatever the case may be ).

Consequently, because our consciousness is detected as indicated by our bodily systems reacting to it, consciousness must be part of the same set of variables as everything else within this "physicality" — we just don't understand it yet. We may never understand it.
 
I think that if we invoke Occam's Razor, then the simplest explanation is that we are autonomous individuals, and that unexplained "memories" are simply the recall of information acquired by some unexplained means. The whole reincarnation bit is what complicates it.

More importantly, even if the memories have been transferred from some deceased person, you still end-up with your same objection, and nothing about the situation makes the person who possesses the information the same person as the deceased. They are still completely different persons, each with their own set of unique experiences. Transfer of information ≠ continuity of personhood following death.

So basically you reject the idea of reincarnation out of hand, even though you leave the evidence itself 'unexplained'. The whole idea of Stevenson's work was to produce evidence of reincarnation that could not be explained in any other way.

I give up trying to discuss with you.

David
 
Technically, something non-physical could be measured by some non-physical measurement system composed of the same non-physical stuff — whatever that would be.

However, if the physical and non-physical are by their nature entirely separate, then no physical system ( including our bodies ) would be capable of measuring ( or detecting ) the non-physical stuff, including consciousness ( or whatever the case may be ).

Consequently, because our consciousness is detected as indicated by our bodily systems reacting to it, consciousness must be part of the same set of variables as everything else within this "physicality" — we just don't understand it yet. We may never understand it.

Stupendous.
Now, upon those premises, can you go one step further (dare I say level 3) and conceptualize about a non-physical non-local entity communicating with one of us physical beings without any physical involvement?
 
So basically you reject the idea of reincarnation out of hand, even though you leave the evidence itself 'unexplained'. The whole idea of Stevenson's work was to produce evidence of reincarnation that could not be explained in any other way.

I give up trying to discuss with you.

David
I don't "reject the idea of reincarnation out of hand". I've put a lot of thought into it, and therefore have a reason based on all the evidence, not simply the evidence that people want to use in support of their preferred beliefs. No matter how you look at it, transfer of information ≠ continuity of personhood following death. That however doesn't mean people aren't having experiences that are genuine. It just means we need another explanation that is possible, rather than relying on beliefs that aren't.
 
Last edited:
Stupendous.
Now, upon those premises, can you go one step further (dare I say level 3) and conceptualize about a non-physical non-local entity communicating with one of us physical beings without any physical involvement?
The whole point is that if one gets the content of my post, there can be no "level 3" that allows for the non-physical to communicate with the physical. The only possibility is that if some sort of unexplained communication is taking place, it is doing so within the realm of the physical. Recognizing this should in theory, allow researchers and thinkers to the concentrate their efforts on finding explanations that are possible, rather than wasting their energy trying to prove favored beliefs that aren't possible. However theory and practice are often two separate things.
 
The whole point is that if one gets the content of my post, there can be no "level 3" that allows for the non-physical to communicate with the physical. The only possibility is that if some sort of unexplained communication is taking place, it is doing so within the realm of the physical. Recognizing this should in theory, allow researchers and thinkers to the concentrate their efforts on finding explanations that are possible, rather than wasting their energy trying to prove favored beliefs that aren't possible. However theory and practice are often two separate things.
I assure you I understood your post and it was brilliant. We just disagree on your second assumption here. You have no basis to assume it - all above statements considered. My point however, is not to persuade that you to invest energy in proving it exists. Rather, I just wanted to offer you the chance to consider the possibility that some of what we refer to as consciousness might exist on that level, and therefore belong in a totally different category. And I imagine that your conceptualization of it would probably be equally superb.
 
I assure you I understood your post and it was brilliant. We just disagree on your second assumption here. You have no basis to assume it - all above statements considered. My point however, is not to persuade that you to invest energy in proving it exists. Rather, I just wanted to offer you the chance to consider the possibility that some of what we refer to as consciousness might exist on that level, and therefore belong in a totally different category. And I imagine that your conceptualization of it would probably be equally superb.
Can you be more specific about what assumption you think I'm making, because so far as I can tell, I'm not making any assumptions. I'm making a logical evaluation — that's very different.
 
Technically, something non-physical could be measured by some non-physical measurement system composed of the same non-physical stuff — whatever that would be.

However, if the physical and non-physical are by their nature entirely separate, then no physical system ( including our bodies ) would be capable of measuring ( or detecting ) the non-physical stuff, including consciousness ( or whatever the case may be ).

Consequently, because our consciousness is detected as indicated by our bodily systems reacting to it, consciousness must be part of the same set of variables as everything else within this "physicality" — we just don't understand it yet. We may never understand it.

I don't understand this logic. back to radin... presentiment... six sigma result... there is more than the physical. and actually the term physical now loses its meaning in terms of our conscious experience. all bets are off. all lines are blurred. max planck now looks reasonable... perhaps consciousness is fundamental.
 
I don't understand this logic.
Not sure specifically what you mean by "This logic". It might require a longer conversation.
back to radin... presentiment... six sigma result... there is more than the physical.
Statistical results from indirect measurements are very weak evidence for the conclusion that there is some sort of afterlife — especially given all the non-statistical relatively direct evidence against the argument.
and actually the term physical now loses its meaning in terms of our conscious experience. all bets are off. all lines are blurred. max planck now looks reasonable...
You're right to question the term "physical". As I explained some number of posts back, that term has different interpretations depending on the flavor of physicalism you're framing the issue in, and there are about as many flavors as there are philosophers. So before we can properly evaluate any particular physicalist approach, first we need to have a clear understanding of the particular context in which it's being used.
perhaps consciousness is fundamental.
The fundamentalness of consciousness is an interesting topic. Maybe more on that at some later time. In the meantime, I don't go so far as panpsychism. Then again, it seems there are now a number of flavors of that too.

I can't say I have answers to all these questions, only that when framed in the way that makes the most sense to me, afterlives aren't possible in the way they are usually imagined, which is as a continuity of personhood following the death of the body. Therefore something else must be going on. One would think that this would be great news for researchers, but researchers seem more bent on proving their beliefs than getting at the truth.
 
Last edited:
Yeah but I think they all require the clock. radin's presentiment experiments falsifies the clock
Can you please elaborate on the above, or provide a link to the specific reference for "the clock"?

BTW: This is what I like about you and your show. You have a wealth of what I'd call more fine grained info about a wide array of issues. It's not that I ignore it, but I tend to wade through all that and discard what's not relevant. So sometimes I miss something, or it needs revisiting when someone brings it up. We could probably talk for hours. If you ever need a fill-in guest, send me a message.
 
Back
Top