The Survival of Bodily Death
Ninth Invitational Conference
May 21 to 25, 2007

Introduction

A palpable sense of excitement surrounded the opening of the ninth invitational conference on The Survival of Bodily Death at Esalen Institute this past May. A distinguished and diverse group of scholars and scientists, many of whom were coming back to this annual meeting for the eighth or ninth time, met on Big Sur’s rocky cliffs to discuss current and future directions for research.

This past winter the members of this ongoing group witnessed the publication of their first book. Under Ed Kelly’s leadership Irreducible Mind: Toward a Psychology for the Twenty First Century is now available in book stores and on the web for purchasing. Berkeley Professor of Neurobiology David Presti, who attended the conference for the first time in 2007, called Irreducible Mind “an extraordinary book...infusing new hope into the issue of scientific approaches to the study of these phenomena.” While according to the University of Chicago Professor of Comparative Human Development Richard Shweder, the impressively documented volume lays down a bottom-line: “either our current understanding of the material world is woefully incomplete because we still don't know how to explain mental powers purely in physical terms, or else there is far more to reality than just the material world.”

The concluding chapter of Irreducible Mind calls for a general theory that can encompass the facts of the physical world and the well-established evidence for various paranormal phenomena. The search for some kind of encompassing theory that is well-anchored to the established data has become the over-arching theme of this annual conference at Esalen in the wake of the publication of Irreducible Mind, which laid out the evidence pointing to the need for a larger theory. With the group’s attention now clearly focused on moving toward a second, more theory-oriented book, the conference began by establishing some groundwork for that endeavor.

Monday

Psychotherapist and historian of psychology Adam Crabtree opened the conference Monday morning with a talk titled “The Way Ahead.” Crabtree’s aim was to consider how the group should proceed in light of the initial reception of Irreducible Mind. Although widely praised by those who read it, the book has yet to be reviewed by more conservative media sources. Crabtree brought attention to a fundamental problem that has plagued discussions of paranormal phenomena for the past 150 years, which is the lack of reflection on the human element in theory building. Many personal and cultural factors inevitably influence the outcome of any theory-building process.

Drawing on the ideas of William James, Crabtree stated that all experience is perspectival, and that as individuals we play a role in the construction of the experiences we have and the theories we form.  Individuals inevitably approach both their experiences and their theory-building from particular and personal points of view. This means that all knowledge is limited and incomplete and that there can be no unconditioned, non-perspectival knowledge of reality which is privileged over other points of view. Crabtree noted that each person’s perspective is determined by the specific pre-existing interests brought to the experience. These interests have their sources in the biological make up of the individual, the cultural influence he or she has been subject to, and the individual’s personal experience. Inevitably, Crabtree asserted, these interests mobilize the emotions of both the persons who have the experience (and produce or identify the data) and the persons who develop the theory. Crabtree also presented an initial draft outline of our proposed theory book. He said that the book will touch upon the perspectival predispositions of our readers and suggested that we keep in mind the fact that we ourselves are not free of perspectival limitations in our own theory-building. If we remain aware of these factors, said Crabtree, we will be able to carry out the project ahead of us with greater effectiveness.

The afternoon session on Monday was coordinated by the four scholars from the Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences of the University of Virginia School of Medicine - Ed and Emily Kelly, Bruce Greyson, and Jim Tucker. During the 2006 meeting they had presented an outline of the main forms of survival evidence, pointing out strengths and weaknesses of each To see a summary of this presentation, visit this URL:

The new presentation sought to extract from this vast literature - estimated by Ed Kelly to contain something like 50,000 to 100,000 pages of high-quality reports in books, monographs, and refereed journals - a summary of properties that the surviving "X" whatever it is, must be presumed at least sometimes to possess. This is vital to our theory-building effort, because no theory will be acceptable - whatever other virtues it may possess - that cannot provide a satisfactory explanation of these empirically observed characteristics. Using specific cases from the literature as illustrations, the UVA group described two main classes of such properties. First there are "positive" properties such as retention and formation of memories; purpose, volition, and planning; continuing psi-type (ESP and PK) interactions with this world; interactions with other X's; and experience of themselves as embodied, conscious selves - in short, all of the main properties of minds or personalities as we customarily encounter them. There are also "negative" properties of various kinds, including apparent limitations on X's, things that might happen but don't, and circumstances predictive of X's capacities, behavior, or post-mortem trajectory. The most general of these is the rare, fugitive, and limited manifestation of the positive properties, which indicates the presence of some sort of barrier and could potentially be explained in a variety of theoretically divergent ways. Another example with implications for theory construction involves the quasi-physical aspects of some apparition cases, especially as seen in collective and reciprocal cases. Special emphasis was placed on the value of the large databases being developed at UVA of spontaneous cases, NDE cases, and cases of the reincarnation type (CORT). The CORT database for example contains over 2500 reports in all, about half of which have been coded and entered into SPSS. As demonstrated by Jim Tucker, this in turn provides new opportunities for testing hypotheses concerning relationships between features of the previous personality's life or mode of death and what happens afterward – for example, how much of the previous life is remembered by the child, or the length of the "intermission" period. Birthmarks and birth defects corresponding to wounds that killed the previous personality also pose serious explanatory challenges. All such regularities will again have to be "explainable" or "understandable" in terms of an empirically adequate theory; indeed, the uniqueness of this seminar, and a fundamental principle of its operation, consists precisely in holding the empirical and theoretical sides of its work in constant creative tension.

In the evening, Charles Tart, author of Altered States of Consciousness, presented a metaphysical scheme developed over his many years of lab work on consciousness, which he has used recently as an approach to understanding the survival of bodily death. One of Tart’s main interests as a consciousness researcher has been to confirm or disconfirm experiences people have while they are in altered states of consciousness (ASCs). His work over several years in this area has led him to develop a sophisticated type of interactionist dualism between mind and matter. Tart believes his model is theoretically robust because it not only provides an explanation for altered states of consciousness, but also can answer how the mind accomplishes more pedestrian tasks, like raising one’s finger. Tart noted that materialistic monism has too often become the unquestioned assumption of scientific discourse, and so he suggested that a revised interactionist dualism might be the theory survival researchers are looking for.

For more information on Tart’s model, please click here to look at diagrams from his presentation at Esalen in 2006 (after clicking, make sure to scroll down to Tart’s presentation):

Tuesday

On Tuesday a first-time participant in the group, Bill Barnard, Professor in the Department of Religious Studies of Southern Methodist University, started by saying that an important first step, when addressing the survival hypothesis and the evidence in support of it, is to acknowledge that death itself is a truly frightening prospect for everyone. Barnard also cautioned participants to be aware of the limitations of what we know about this life, to say nothing of the afterlife. He spoke about some of his own background, including his spiritual journey from a more ascetic approach to his current concern for the body and human personality. His current outlook has been influenced by his work as a facilitator at the Full Spectrum Healing Arts School in Meadville, Pennsylvania, where he focuses on neo-Reichian characterology, movement work, and a variety of transpersonal modalities. Barnard mentioned an irony surrounding the overall inquiry into the survival question. He said that a great deal of spiritual development in this lifetime helps us to know our bodies on a deep level. But then, as we ponder death and the afterlife, we are asked to leave our precious bodies behind. Because academics are often afraid of, or derogatory towards, their own bodies, Barnard doesn’t believe that true inquiry into the afterlife can begin until our own attitudes about our bodies have been aired and explored.

Barnard turned next to the French philosopher Henri Bergson, whose work is quite congruent with the survival hypothesis. One of Bergson’s main insights was about the continuity of consciousness. Bergson saw that our mental activity endlessly flows from one state to the other with no gaps, only shifts, in perspective. Thus, Barnard speculated, why should conscious activity after physical death be any different? Perhaps the moment of death is as seamless as falling asleep or moving into dream? To support his idea, Barnard drew upon a variety of accounts of dreams, visions and mystical states that suggest a more continuous view of the activity of consciousness. In response to some of Barnard’s ideas, Jim Tucker noted that in the cases of children who remember past lives, it is true that the more time one has had to prepare for death the less brutal that death is reported to be. Someone who knows death is coming soon can willingly participate in the process, and thus the transition is smoother to the disembodied state. And if Barnard and Bergson are right, then perhaps that same person can notice the seamless flow and continuity of consciousness throughout the entire process.

Adam Crabtree gave the next presentation, which he titled “A Neo-Jamesian Approach to Survival.” He attempted to show how James’s notions of experience and the “I” might be useful in framing a general theory of survival. He started with James’s concept of “pure experience,” which is what James called “a concrete integral moment in life.” Pure experience is, for James, the equivalent of “phenomena” or what appears, considered before any reflection on having the phenomenal experience. From this point of view it is what makes up the universe. Crabtree stated that there is a second step that brings us as individuals into the picture. This occurs when I become aware that the experience is mine. Here the knowing become conscious to me and I “own” or “appropriate” the experience as my own. Crabtree then examined what this appropriator, which is my “I,” might be and what function it has in my life. Crabtree said that this “I” is, according to James, a non-empirical thing, which is nevertheless an agent--it “acts” to appropriate the experience. Crabtree speculated, following James’s notion that perhaps we are all part of a “world-soul”, that in the end there may be only one “I” that acts and appropriates experience in each one of us. Although at first glance this might seem to indicate there is no survival of individual persons beyond death, but only of the world soul, Crabtree believes that the individuality once formed in connection with the body could remain an individual identity after death. This would be due to the fact that the individual “me” or empirical self, formed during a life, could still continue after death, even though the body, which was essential in its formation, had disappeared. As Crabtree put it, we would continue to have the one non-empirical “I” in common, but also continue to function as many empirical “me’s.”

In the discussion that afternoon, historian of science Bob Rosenberg placed the conference’s project in the larger sweep of western science. Rosenberg said the results of contemporary psi research are a threat to today’s established worldview in a way quite comparable to the Copernican shift centuries ago. He pointed out that revolutionary theories do not always require a fully worked-out explanation of causal mechanisms. To cite a few examples, Rosenberg noted that Darwin was unaware of the genetic role behind natural selection, but that did not stop him from proposing that a change in environment could lead to speciation events. Likewise, spectroscopy was used to determine the chemical composition of stars long before quantum mechanics explained how it worked. Furthermore, great new theories do not always necessarily simplify at first. Because Copernicus insisted on using combinations of circular motions in his heliocentric universe--as had the geocentric Ptolemaic model he wanted to replace--his model actually required more centers of motion than the geocentric one. It was Kepler's ellipses, six decades later, that simplified planetary motion.

To demonstrate how differently we can theorize about psi phenomena, Rosenberg mentioned J.W. Dunne’s Experiment with Time (1927). Dunne was a British aeronautical engineer interested in the precognitive dreams he was experiencing. Dunne found two things about his dreams: first, that he had about as many items or events in his dreams that were from the past (memory) as from the future (precognition); and, second, that his precognitions were always about his future actions, not about what those actions referred to in the dream. For example, if he dreamed about a volcano erupting, the information in his dream would match what he would subsequently read about the eruption in the newspaper--even if that information turned out to be wrong. Therefore, he pursued a theory of time as a slice of the fourth dimension, readily accessible during dreams.

An entirely different approach--but one that seems equally attractive at first blush--can be found in Dean Radin’s Entangled Minds (2006). Radin posits a world in a state of quantum entanglement where action at a distance, and therefore most psi phenomena, is possible. Henry Stapp noted that some of Radin’s conclusions have been challenged. Although Stapp agrees with Radin on certain points, Stapp is not convinced that pursuing Radin’s preferred theory of quantum coherence will deliver relevant avenues for continued research.

On Tuesday night Esalen co-founder Michael Murphy gave a presentation on Sri Aurobindo. He mentioned a recently written essay by Jeffrey Kripal that investigates the links between Aurobindo and the psychologist Frederic Myers. Murphy noted that Aurobindo’s metaphysical system is lofty in certain places, but it makes room for the psychological sophistication apparent in William James and Frederic Myers. Murphy described Aurobindo’s view that our physical bodies are set within larger nests of embodied structures (subtle bodies, and so forth), which continue outward to still dimly charted territories that the great mystics have described. Murphy emphasized that we have only begun to explore these furthest reaches of spiritual experience, particularly the finer details of how many subtle bodies we each have.

Wednesday

Wednesday’s session started with physicist Henry Stapp, who explained the relevance of quantum mechanics to the question of survival. Whereas classical mechanics was a science of the dynamics of machines, quantum mechanics is the science of the dynamics of ideas. The classical mechanics of Newton assumed the causal closure of the physical world. That is, given a precise physical description of the past, the physical description of the future is completely determined by the classical laws. Thus, the issue of mind is irrelevant in classical descriptions. According to the precepts of classical mechanics, it matters not what mind does.

The quantum revolution of the early twentieth century changed all that. Newton's "classical" idea that each particle had at each instant a precisely defined location and velocity was dropped. According to the new theory the spacetime properties of, say, an electron, or any other elementary particle, are represented by a smeared out cloud of possibilities. This cloud is mathematically interpretable as clouds of potentialities for an "event" to occur. A close theoretical connection between mind and brain---and hence between theory and empirical phenomena (i.e., experienced data)---is incorporated into the theory by making each such event a psycho-physical event, in which the physically described aspect is a "collapse" or "reduction" of the prior physical state to the part of itself that is compatible with the increment of knowledge represented by the psychologically described aspect of the event.

Stapp noted that current neurological research has developed technology to allow people, through nothing but the power of their thinking, to type out words on a screen. Quantum theory accommodates this nicely, because mind is, within that theory, causally efficacious. According to quantum theory, the injection of an immaterial idea into the material brain is a two-step process. The dynamical theory has a causal gap that allows a conscious human being to pose a question. Like a game of 20 questions, the question must be Yes-or-No type questions. Nature then delivers an answer, and these answers are predicted by the theory to be in accord with specified statistical rules. But the posing of the questions is not controlled by any yet-known laws or rules. Stapp has been able to use the well-known Quantum Zeno Effect and the notion of Attention Density to create a model of how mental intentions influence physical reality.

Stapp asserted that quantum theory is completely compatible with the idea that there is a world of idea-like qualities that has its own dynamics and law-like behavior, just as the physical world does. We cannot know that dynamics directly, however, because current physics deals only with the interaction of the world of ideas with the physical world. This is one stage better than classical mechanics, which just lops off the mental side of reality altogether. The goals of the scientific enterprise, broadly conceived as more than an adjunct to engineering practice, ought to include the project of increasing our knowledge about the manner in which we human beings function in relation to the physically described world. This should include the exploration of how our felt values and conscious intentions are possibly causally efficacious realities. Acquiring an understanding of how our idea-like aspects function when we are alive would be a rational first step to understanding how, if at all, these aspects survive bodily death.

Eric Weiss followed Stapp by placing current ideas about quantum mechanics within a broader historical context. In particular, Weiss addressed the philosophical question of how we view “matter.” Weiss started with a simple question, “What do we mean by a ‘thing?’” Until the early modern world, Aristotle’s theory of natural entities reigned: natural entities are forms (ideas) interacting with substance. But around the thirteenth century the emphasis began to shift from form to substance. Giordano Bruno completed the reversal and insisted that substance itself is pregnant with form. There was also, coming from medicine, an increasing interest in the fundamental elements of matter, and the elements were, by the sixteenth century, understood to be atomic. In Newton’s synthesis, atoms were envisioned as always fully actual and as entirely devoid of process. All of reality was an arrangement of atoms, so purpose, choice, awareness, and value were drained from the material world. Descartes introduced his two-substance duality to create some place for the human soul and consciousness, thus alienating mind from matter as well as leading to a host of other ontological and epistemological difficulties.

Weiss said that Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy provides a new metaphysical system that resolves the ontological and epistemological dilemmas of modern philosophy. Whitehead’s metaphysics can make fully intelligible: Stapp's quantum mechanics, psi phenomena, and the subtle worlds, all of which are needed to make the personality’s survival of physical death a meaningful possibility. Weiss's dissertation combined the rigorous metaphysics of Whitehead with Aurobindo, who describes a cosmos in which the physical world is only one part of a larger set of actual worlds. Importantly, these other worlds are composed of different grades of matter (from gross to subtle). Weiss condensed Aurobindo's highly elaborated cosmological layers into a simple trinity of worlds: there is the physical world of inorganic existence – the world that is studied by the discipline of physics. There is also an imaginal world (also called the astral or vital world), which is made out of a higher grade of matter. This is the world in which we have dreams and out of body experiences—and in which we exist after the death of the body. There is yet a third world—the mental world—which cannot be visualized (as dreams are). This is the world in which we exist when we are in deep sleep, or in the later stages of the after-death journey.

Weiss discovered that Whitehead's doctrine of “grades of matter” is well suited to express the idea of subtle matter and subtle worlds. Subtle matter is what Whitehead calls “actual occasions of higher grade,” and the subtle worlds are worlds made up of these higher grade occasions. Importantly, these higher worlds are already involved in our waking lives here on earth. Weiss emphasized that all life is the expression of higher grade occasions within inorganic matter. Likewise, all thinking beings (humans) are the expression of mental grade occasions within the inorganic world. In this way of thinking about reality, there are some subtle beings that choose to become involved or descend into the inorganic world of matter. That descent then evokes out (or “self-organizes”) the new level of physical existence. Thus, matter evolves into life which evolves into mind. But this entire evolutionary ascent in the material realm from level to level to level is guided by higher and higher grade occasions on the subtle realms. For there to be what we call “emergence,” higher grade occasions must descend into matter to evoke that new potential. In this sense, every ascent in the material world requires a descent from the subtle world. Or, put differently, each physical emergence requires an attractor from the subtle worlds, where the non-material form (or idea) of the new emergent being is already waiting to be actualized.

According to this view, humans are mental grade beings who are involved in vital bodies (the bodies in which we dream, etc.), which are, in turn, involved in inorganic bodies made up of macromolecules. Thus, the subtle worlds are not some distant and obscure reality, but rather essential components of our waking lives. For further treatment of this topic, please see conference summaries of Weiss’ presentations from previous years in the Survival conference.

The research-oriented members of the conference were intrigued with Weiss's theory, particularly insofar as it may prove able to span the apparent chasm between quantum mechanics as understood by Henry Stapp and the pictures of higher realms sketched by Aurobindo and other representatives of the wisdom traditions, with thinkers such as Myers, James, Bergson, Whitehead and other "process" philosophers as possible intermediaries. But they also challenged Weiss to put his thinking in a form that is both acceptable to Stapp’s understanding of quantum mechanics and be “tested” in various ways by the researchers in terms of its ability to explain the available survival data as well as the various empirical phenomena catalogued in Irreducible Mind.

Overall, Weiss’ theory attempts to show how semi-autonomous subtle worlds interact with the physical one we live in. If Weiss’s theory holds up to the established data, it might help explain psi phenomena and also give a theoretical context for survival of bodily death. Bruce Greyson, for example, noted that there is better evidence for intercommunication from the imaginal to the physical realm (mediumship, ESP), but less evidence for communication between imaginal entities (little evidence that channeled entities, for example, have spoken to one another after their deaths). So, Greyson questioned whether each physical body might be correlated with its own unique and independent imaginal realm? This would still explain psi as a subjective phenomena but leave the survival of death unexplained. Weiss' research into the meditative states of the great spiritual figures has convinced him that communication within the imaginal plane is possible. However, he acknowledged that the next step is to achieve scientific confirmation of such speculative claims. Bill Barnard added that another problem may be that one cannot ask for the same conditions of repeatability in the imaginal realm as in the physical, but even that does not deny the independent existence of the imaginal.

Thursday

The final presentation of the conference came from David Presti, Professor of Neurobiology at UC Berkeley. Presti drew an elaborate diagram with an vast number of interconnecting nodes as he explained some of the details of his research. Presti astounded the conference with an elaborate explanation of the many chemical and electrical configurations and transmissions that are required for the simplest of brain activity. Currently, scientists are learning to understand how these chemical and electrical interactions result in the physical changes of the organism.

Despite many recent advances in his field, Presti explained that what stands out about brain research is how little we know. For example, the brain wave research conducted by consciousness researchers covers only about 10% of the brain's activity. Presti estimated that our current level of knowledge only concerns two to ten percent of overall brain activity. To draw an analogy to current cosmological theories, our brains contain a lot of "dark energy" that we know exists, but we have no idea what its function is yet.

It has also has become more and more clear that everything in the brain is intricately and rapidly linked to everything else, thus brain researchers are finding it impossible to specialize in one area of the brain without taking account of the whole system. Because there is still so much to learn about the brain, Presti said he remains open to scientific research of psi phenomena. He is also interested in how the evidence for near death experiences may help refute the current reductionist orientation in the philosophy of mind.

On Thursday mid-morning after David Presti’s talk, Michael Murphy had each of the conference participants speak to what they needed for a convincing and workable theory for the survival of bodily death. To start, Murphy said any theory must have:

An ultimate supreme principle (or "I")
Human participation in the subtle worlds
Post-mortem survival and reincarnation
A conception of the individual that extends all the way back to the Big Bang.

Murphy also cautioned not to reify the great levels and worlds of existence, but the great cross-cultural wisdom traditions do speak of them. We cannot deny them.

David Presti was impressed by Murphy’s scheme but would rather start from the physical level, as he trusts the judgment of the wisdom traditions but feels they have to be taken on faith.

Bill Barnard advocated for "consciousness all the way down" (grades of consciousness up and down the ladder) and the non-deterministic, creative nature of reality. Barnard also emphasized that we co-create the spiritual realms and afterlife. Those realms are not static. As we evolve in the material realm, humans can co-create with the subtle realms. He was careful about making value judgments about different levels, and wanted to keep the body and matter fully valued without reifying the levels, making sure the overall theory allows for co-creativity.

Ed Kelly appreciates the quantum mechanics of Stapp. He wants a theory that includes higher states of consciousness and can explain psi.

Henry Stapp reiterated the need for a level "over" the physical description, more "idea-like," with a similar structure as the lower physical level. Physicists are okay with “hyper-dimensions.” They use that language of “hyper.”

Emily Kelly asserted the need for a self-organizing principle in both the physical and mental worlds. She affirmed that a principle that creates self-organized unities at all levels is crucial.

Eric Weiss said we need a new metaphysical understanding that:

• Is adequate to science (especially to quantum mechanics)
• Permits measurement where relevant
• Does not encounter the mind-body problem
• Allows us to define subtle matter, space, and embodiment
• Contains a deep understanding of self-organization
• Explains psi phenomena, survival and reincarnation.

Bruce Greyson said his first commitment is to empiricism. He asked just how discrete the "subtle" and "physical" worlds need to be to fully explain the phenomena.

Jim Tucker added that he doesn't like term "subtle,” which may carry more metaphysical baggage than the term “consciousness.” He could agree with two categories – matter and mind – for explanatory purposes, but was uncomfortable with terms that posit space-like realms.

Adam Crabtee said that “grades of matter” is better than “subtle” and “subtle worlds” for him. Crabtree said that levels are necessary for speaking about spiritual phenomena.

Sam Yau emphasized that the overall theory needs a creative/creation component and an evolutionary component.

Conclusion

The conference ended in good spirits. First-time participants Presti and Barnard left with new avenues for research and are looking forward to coming back. Eric Weiss was encouraged by the feedback he received about his Whitehead-Aurobindo theory of survival. Weiss will begin to flesh out how his theory can account for the current survival evidence and make specific predictions for testing. Lastly, everyone was elated at the news that John and Alice Faye Cleese have pledged additional funding in support of the continued research central to this conference series.