Tuesday, February 12, 2013

From the JofC Archives: Society for Scientific Exploration Meeting

Report on the 24th Annual Society for Scientific Exploration Meeting

By Nelson Abreu
Originally published in the Journal of Conscientiology (JofC), Vol. 8, 2005-06, Issue 29, July.


May 19, 2005, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

To most attendees of the 24th annual meeting of the Society for Scientific Exploration, the earth-shattering implications of psi research seem to deserve our time and resources like no other enterprise. Yet, psi research over the last century within the U.S. has received funding equivalent to what mainstream psychology research receives in one month. In fact, more funding is available to study pig reproduction than to research concerning life after death. Dogmatic, materialistic scientists censor the truly meaningful questions and feed the spiritual crisis of Earth, because their basic premise is that there is no meaning - life started by accident; there is no spirit, and nothing survives physical death.

The incoherence and sophism in mainstream science can be more bizarre than psi phenomena itself or even quantum non-locality. Both mainstream media and science’s editor-censors overlook, scoff at, or outright refuse to consider the facts. Yet, promising rigorous research, the intellect of many of humanity’s geniuses like William James, Schrödinger, and Bohm, and a large body of anecdotal accounts throughout time should capture the attention of any rational, curious human being.

About a hundred individuals turned out, from throughout the USA and Europe, to hear Dr. Edgar Mitchell (the 6th man to land on the moon) describe his expansion of consciousness and other psychic anomalies he has witnessed first hand. From the spontaneous remission of his mother’s glaucoma to telekinesis in a controlled environment, Dr. Mitchell pronounced these phenomena as real (not “unexplainable” as misquoted in the April 22 Gainesville Sun report), even if we don’t fully understand them at the moment.

Through experiments, experiences, observations, and discourses our concepts about life, reality, evolution, truth, rationality, reason, knowledge, science versus “pseudo-science,” rigorous protocols versus sensory leakage, and genuine phenomena in a sea of fraud have been explored. Investigation continues on a variety of controversial subjects like: alternative therapies, and phenomena related to subtle vital energies (known to billions as chi in China and known by hundreds of other names all over the world).

Brenda Dunne and Dr. Robert Jahn foresaw a Science of the Subjective that would replace current scientific “rules” which make too many assumptions about anomalous phenomena by failing to recognize factors such as: intention, oscillations in performance, irregular replicability, insensitivity to space-time distances, gender discrepancies in effect levels, and uncertainty as sources of anomalies. Such insights stem from rigorous engineering experiments over a quarter century at Princeton that have verified that humans can make small, but statistically significant effects on electronic and mechanical random processes. Adding to the military-sponsored research at Stanford Research Institute, these researchers, and others like physicist Russell Targ, have helped verify that we can gather information from a distance (remote viewing) beyond our five basic senses.

Dr. Marylin Schiltz of the Institute of Noetic Sciences described studies with Dr. Dean Radin (The Conscious Universe) in which people influenced the physiology of others, even helped heal from a distance. This type of research is so encouraging that they have attracted funds from the National Institutes of Health. Duke University engineers studied a man that can emit unusual levels of energy detected by sensors. Zavalin’s Vanderbilt research on effects of multipolar fields on living systems was contrasted with our binary society and technology of “good or evil” and “0’s or 1’s.”

Of particular interest is the psi blocker effect, which is ignored in many tests by skeptics such as James Randi. The effect was rigorously demonstrated when the exact same experiment had significant results when performed by Dr. Schlitz but not when done by a skeptic colleague. Dr. Mitchell described how when certain colleagues were present during SRI experiments, the psychic’s performance was adversely affected.

The physicist Harris Walker (The Physics of Consciousness), progenitor of the Quantum Consciousness Theory, charged skeptics with stifling humanity’s progress throughout time. Typically, skeptics do not collaborate with researchers; they already have their minds made up, or merely guess at alternate explanations, and often employ flawed logical arguments and ad hominem attacks.

Michael Lydon (co-founder of the Science of Self Club at Queens College at the City University of New York, and a volunteer at the International Academy of Consciousness, exposed materialistic science’s metaphysical biases for arbitrary and/or cultural-historical reasons and argued that subjective experience is the basis of all science and, indeed, reality.

Time magazine’s Lemonick was very balanced in his skepticism during the conference and open to personal exploration of altered states like the out-of-body experience, but his article (Science on the Fringe, May 30) turned out shallow and excessively pejorative.

Even in mainstream science, such as entomology, Dr. Thomas Dykstra (SSE secretary; Dykstra Labs, Gainesville) finds great resistance to his research because it exposes irrational attachments to old ideas and glaring logical flaws in the archaic, dominant paradigm.

Ironically, while most people seem to believe in life after death, researchers like University of Arizona’s Dr. Gary Schwartz (The Afterlife Project) are not widely supported because many people do not often deeply investigate the research for themselves, instead opting to trust the dismissals of others.
In a society that avoids talking about death and whose dominant religious institutions dissuade individual exploration of the afterlife, Ian Stevenson’s U. of Virginia research (Children Who Remember Their Previous Lives) is as controversial as it is thought-provoking.

Off mic, during the breaks (when much of the more interesting dialogue takes place), many attendees recognized that the fear of death and of the “paranormal,” as reinforced by Hollywood’s sensationalism, was part of a major tool for manipulation of the masses. Fear of the paranormal contributes to the humanity’s deferral of responsibility. When people implicitly or explicitly offer their trust to Hollywood, they stultify their search for truth and forfeit their consciential liberty to corporate-industrial-bellicose, antiecological, anti-ethical policy, as well as consumerism, and the robotization of individuals on a grand scale.

Most clairvoyants or individuals who have had lucid OBE’s or NDE’s lose their fear of death and excessive materialism after having these direct extraphysical experiences. When asked why they prioritized this line of knowledge, guests revealed it was not primarily research, but a profound, visceral, paradigm-busting personal experience.

David Lindsay (director of the International Academy of Consciousness New York office) invoked Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, one of the most quoted works of the 20th century, which demonstrated that scientific progress comes in revolutionary departures from “normal science.” In that spirit, Lindsay described an avant-garde, spherical Waking Physical Immobility Laboratory (in Portugal) that is completely bare (“but only in the physical aspect”) except for a recliner. This sort of “Laboratory” is where a more multidimensional science conducts its experiments. Under the Consciential Paradigm, researchers develop an integral and “multidimensional” understanding of consciousness, bioenergy, and its related anomalies while they strive to recover one-third of life usually spent floating unconscious above the body.

They explore other dimensions of reality, individually or in “joint projections,” and compare notes afterwards. “Are we going to wait around for others to catch up? The Newtonian paradigm is out the window!” – says Lindsay. In the absence of convincing repeatable experiments or “extraphysical vision goggles,” OBErs invite you to investigate for yourself!

For local and internet resources to further explore these topics, contact Nelson Abreu, a Society for Scientific Exploration’s student representative and an instructor of the International Academy of Consciousness.

“The greatest strength of science is that it is rooted in actual experience. The great weakness of contemporary science is that it admits only certain types of experience as legitimate.” – Nobel laureate physicist David Bohm.

No comments:

Post a Comment