Descriptions:
Dr Edward Kelly is a researcher and author who expended a career discovering the mysteries of consciousness. For him, the proof is frustrating: The materialistic worldview, now named physicalism, falls short. Consciousness is a lot more than a merchandise of brain activity, but most importantly, consciousness survives actual physical death.
Contents:
00:00:19 Introduction of Dr. Ed Kelly
00:06:42 Enthusiasm and endeavors 100 a long time in the past
00:11:09 Did you have any amazing results by way of all the a long time?
00:15:15 What acquired you concerned with parapsychology in the initial place?
00:17:36 In which are we in consciousness research now?
00:24:43 Reactions to publications
00:29:02 How do you believe we’re heading to glimpse again at today’s naturalistic physicalistic perspective of the entire world or of the origin of consciousness in 100 years’ time?
00:31:54 What does it indicate to demonstrate something in idealistic terms or idealism?
00:34:58 What sort of a see of truth of the human becoming have you formulated?
00:37:27 What do you feel, what is consciousness, exactly where does consciousness then appear from if physicalism is improper?
00:39:46 Do you assume you’ve collected enough proof for the survival of consciousness after death?
00:41:38 So you would say apparitions, it really is scientifically sound to say that they do occur?
00:44:06 Ian Stevenson
00:46:38 What about the mystical experiences?
00:54:22 When you read through these reviews like about Padre Pio, do you feel they have validity?
00:56:13 What is actually your check out on the on the further than, the afterlife?
00:57:19 Do you consider there is some kind of a connection to our internal life, of our thoughts, imaginations, desires, aspirations?
00:58:27 What does the long run hold for you? And for DoPS?
Credits:
Interview: Jens Rohrbeck
Editorial contribution: Heike Funke
Editor: Werner Huemer
℗ Mediaservice Werner Huemer
© 2021 Thanatos Television set EN
Remember to Aid OUR Get the job done WITH YOUR DONATION!
https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=CNDY6LJZFU3GN
Tags
Leave your comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks Dr Kelly. When I hear the direction you are taking I am heartened. Along with this study of consciousness, cutting-edge science needs to consider the egocentric physical body which uses brainpower, and the consciousness of the interdimensional self which uses 'mind' as the intermediary.
Might NDE's actually be recapitulations of near birth experiences? Birth canal being dark tunnel. Blinding light being lamps of delivery room. And feelings of love being Obs/Gyne staff and/or parents/siblings reception?
I wish this channel made a video about negative near death experiences. Tho a minority, some people have nightmarish experiences in these situations.
Does it give the ability to change past events?
Please all the books that were mentioned should be in the discriptsends so that you dont have to sit with pen and paper an couldnt follow the interview completley. It is so interesting im so happy that you do this work!!! Thank you!!
Hi! Would you be interested in my personal experience? It is along similar lines as those discussed here.
II am a physicist and I will provide solid arguments that prove that consciousness cannot be generated by the brain (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). Many argue that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but it is possible to show that such hypothesis is inconsistent with our scientific knowledges. In fact, it is possible to show that all the examples of emergent properties consists of concepts used to describe how an external object appear to our conscious mind, and not how it is in itself, which means how the object is independently from our observation.
Let me show this with an example of emergent property, such as the function of a biological organ, like the heart that has the function of pumping blood. Actually, the function of pumping blood is just an abstract concept through which we approximately describe what is really happening, that is billions of linked chemical reactions and moving molecules. In other words, the function of the heart is only a subjective description of the organ from a macroscopic point of view, which neglect many microscopic details. Besides, the concept of pumping is directly connected to the concepts of force and movement, which are fundamental physical properties. Therefore, the function of the heart is not a new real property, but only a conceptual model through which we approximately describe the reality; this means that the function of the heart is just an idea. Emergent properties are ideas conceived to describe or classify, according to arbitrary criteria and from an arbitrary point of view, certain processes or systems; emergent properties are intrinsically subjective, since they are conceptual models based on the arbitrary choice to focus on certain aspects of a system and neglet other aspects, such as microscopic structures and processes; emergent properties consist of ideas through which we describe how the external reality appears to our conscious mind: without a conscious mind, these ideas (= emergent properties) would not exist at all.
Here comes my first argument: arbitrariness, subjectivity, classifications and approximate descriptions, imply the existence of a conscious mind, which can arbitrarily choose a specific point of view and focus on certain aspects while neglecting others. It is obvious that consciousness cannot be considered an emergent property of the physical reality, because consciousenss is a preliminary necessary condition for the existence of any emergent property. We have then a logical contradiction. Nothing which presupposes the existence of consciousness can be used to try to explain the existence of consciousness.
Here comes my second argument: our scientific knowledge shows that brain processes consist of sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes; since consciousness is not a property of ordinary elementary physical processes, then a succession of such processes cannot have cosciousness as a property. In fact we can break down the process and analyze it step by step, and in every step consciousness would be absent, so there would never be any consciousness during the entire sequence of elementary processes. It must be also understood that considering a group of elementary processes together as a whole is an arbitrary choice. In fact, according to the laws of physics, any number of elementary processes is totally equivalent. We could consider a group of one hundred elementary processes or ten thousand elementary processes, or any other number; this choice is arbitrary and not reducible to the laws of physics. However, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrary choices; therefore consciousness cannot be a property of a sequence of elementary processes as a whole, because such sequence as a whole is only an arbitrary and abstract concept that cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
Here comes my third argument: It should also be considered that brain processes consist of billions of sequences of elementary processes that take place in different points of the brain; if we attributed to these processes the property of consciousness, we would have to associate with the brain billions of different consciousnesses, that is billions of minds and personalities, each with its own self-awareness and will; this contradicts our direct experience, that is, our awareness of being a single person who is able to control the voluntary movements of his own body with his own will. If cerebral processes are analyzed taking into account the laws of physics, these processes do not identify any unity; this missing unit is the necessarily non-physical element (precisely because it is missing in the brain), the element that interprets the brain processes and generates a unitary conscious state, that is the human mind.
Here comes my forth argument: Consciousness is characterized by the fact that self-awareness is an immediate intuition that cannot be broken down or fragmented into simpler elements. This characteristic of consciousness of presenting itself as a unitary and non-decomposable state, not fragmented into billions of personalities, does not correspond to the quantum description of brain processes, which instead consist of billions of sequences of elementary incoherent quantum processes. When someone claims that consciousness is a property of the brain, they are implicitly considering the brain as a whole, an entity with its own specific properties, other than the properties of the components. From the physical point of view, the brain is not a whole, because its quantum state is not a coherent state, as in the case of entangled systems; the very fact of speaking of "brain" rather than many cells that have different quantum states, is an arbitrary choice. This is an important aspect, because, as I have said, consciousness is a necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness. So, if a system can be considered decomposable and considering it as a whole is an arbitrary choice, then it is inconsistent to assume that such a system can have or generate consciousness, since consciousness is a necessary precondition for the existence of any arbitrary choice. In other words, to regard consciousness as a property ofthe brain, we must first define what the brain is, and to do so we must rely only on the laws of physics, without introducing arbitrary notions extraneous to them; if this cannot be done, then it means that every property we attribute to the brain is not reducible to the laws of physics, and therefore such property would be nonphysical. Since the interactions between the quantum particles that make up the brain are ordinary interactions, it is not actually possible to define the brain based solely on the laws of physics. The only way to define the brain is to arbitrarily establish that a certain number of particles belong to it and others do not belong to it, but such arbitrariness is not admissible. In fact, the brain is not physically separated from the other organs of the body, with which it interacts, nor is it physically isolated from the external environment, just as it is not isolated from other brains, since we can communicate with other people, and to do so we use physical means, for example acoustic waves or electromagnetic waves (light). This necessary arbitrariness in defining what the brain is, is sufficient to demonstrate that consciousness is not reducible to the laws of physics. Besides, since the brain is an arbitrary concept, and consciousness is the necessary preliminary condition for the existence of arbitrariness, consciousness cannot be a property of the brain. Based on these considerations, we can exclude that consciousness is generated by brain processes or is an emergent property of the brain. Marco Biagini
Oh you are so boring
23:00 Time Anchors ⚓
train the nursing staff to monitor and report such OBE incidences as protocol
What about journey of souls my Dr Michael Newton
Fascinating thank you
Such a lovely man, and a FIRST CLASS interview. Thank you so much
I'm overwhelmed with gratitude to be living during these times where I can listen to such truthful assertions. There's an inner knowing of this Truth, I don't have words to explain it. Thank you for sharing this.
Dr Ed Kelly! Absolutely vital insights on the current views of science vis a vis consciousness. Excellent interview. Thanks.
The piercing sound makes this hard to listen to
I do not understand why it's so hard to accept that we are one of the organisms emerged from the universe like all other organisms..and all organisms have psychic powers for survival already.
Thank you! I admire Mr. kelly´s perseverance and his overall work. Most humans are so brain-washed that we have trouble seeing reality as it is. Fear is at the bottom of ignorance, I guess. I am a psychic (or whatever name could be used) and even myself doubt my visions at times. Maybe because the dominant culture (T.V, news, free-market economy) doesn´t want us to open our eyes is that we continue to live in the wrong dream?
I just have a comment about one thing that was mentioned more than once about NDEs. Dr. Kelly said they were mostly a positive and transformative experience for people, but if I remember correctly, they're also not very good for marriages. The person who underwent the NDE experience comes away from the experience a different person. Even if this is a good thing personally, interpersonally this may become a problem. He or she starts to value things differently than their marriage partner, s/he becomes less materialistic, possibly less career driven, and more spiritual while their spouse remains compatible, at best, with their personality prior the experience. I don't think the benefits should be discussed without mentioning the costs to personal relationships, especially when children may be affected. If anything, I would hope this would be an incentive for others to fund research into NDEs because, of course, we would like to benefit from a positive experience so long as the experiencer is able to prevent it from ending their marriage and adversely affecting other relationships with friends & family.
Have you or Dr Kelly read the book, "Autobiography of a Yogi" by Paramahansa Yogananda? Any thoughts. Yogananda's body days after his passing remained intact without decay as most bodies do within hours. This is well documented. He also passed away consciously infront of hundreds of attendees at a talk by him including the governor of CA, and the Ambassador of India to the U.S.A.
Fascinating
The hate on excessive Randi sorta turns me off, like, psychic phenomena is a field highly prone to grifters and scam artists and deserves a very high degree of skepticism, and debunkers deserve respect in countering deceit. Pushback, even if it seems excessive, forces researchers to mount more and more evidence, until the point gets as near to irrefutable as possible. And the debate that comes out of these disagreements is often fruitful, take the published criticism of Ludduth and responses by Tucker and Matlocke over the Leininger past life memory case as an example of good response to pushback
I hope that huMAN soon can include woMEN as well. Males seem to be the only speacies on this planet still … in the 2 millienium..