• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

As A Scientist, I Didn’t Believe In Psychic Powers. Then I Experienced Something That Changed My Life.

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Note that this is not about whether or not a God or gods exist, but about the capabilities of the human brain. It is to me about testing some claims using the tools of science and demonstrating that what we're capable of goes beyond our ordinary awareness. Thus I've started this thread under "paranormal discussion only"

As A Scientist, I Didn’t Believe In Psychic Powers. Then I Experienced Something That Changed My Life.

...
I began reading magazines like The Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic, which used critical thinking to debunk extraordinary claims. From this perspective, humans were simply viewed as very good at deluding and fooling ourselves. Rational and logical thinking dictates that we see belief in ghosts and paranormal abilities as psychological reactions and tricks of the mind.

Meanwhile, my psychology training program was shaping a particular way of viewing the world — that an atheistic, logical, and rational approach was the only one with validity. Belief in the paranormal was associated with immaturity (at best) and psychopathology (at worst). Consciousness was seen as arising from the neural connections of the brain. When we stop breathing and the brain ceases its functions, consciousness is lost, and the body decays. There is no God. There are no ghosts. Nothing is real unless science can prove it. I was no longer open to experiences and possibilities outside the realm of what was considered “normal,” but that was all about to change.
...
Apparently, Janet began spontaneously speaking South American tribal languages after participating in a holotropic breathwork session. What a relief! No bad news after all. Wait, what!? Spontaneously speaking South American tribal languages? I can see why he would be cautious about sharing this news. It sounded ridiculous.
...
Janet knew that I conducted EEG brain imaging and was open to participating in a series of experiments to measure what was happening in her brain when she allowed the languages to come through. One of the first things I noticed was a significant change in the EEG signals coming from sensor locations in the back right quadrant of the brain. Instead of the normal, nice, neat patterns we expect to see, these signals jumped off the screen and almost looked like seizure activity. After double and triple-checking my equipment and finding the same change in activity on several testing occasions, I had to accept that something dramatic was happening in Janet’s brain.
It turns out that the specific location involved was in the right parietal lobe (RPL). This part of the brain is involved in defining and perceiving the self, self-related thoughts, perception of the body, and autobiographical memory. Basically, when this part of the brain is doing its job, it creates an understanding of the “self” as a separate and discrete entity associated with the definition of “me.” When this part of the brain is damaged or goes “off-line,” like it did with Janet, it is associated with feelings of spiritual transcendence and a softening of boundaries between “self” and “other.”

Somehow, it appeared Janet was able to temporarily disrupt the functioning of her RPL, presumably allowing her to shift her consciousness in a way that some would claim allowed other forms of consciousness to speak through her. Despite what I thought I knew about reality, and as crazy as it sounded, I was left with the conclusion that Janet was somehow channeling several people, beings, or entities.
...
However, I have seen enough to make me believe that our minds are capable of much more than most of us dare to imagine. While we may not fully understand how or why, it seems clear to me now that psi abilities are a natural and normal part of human experience, and that scientists should dedicate more time and resources to exploring them.
...
Personally, this exploration has opened my mind to a whole new world of possibility. Having witnessed “the impossible” on numerous occasions — in scientific settings, no less — I have come to accept that consciousness can extend far beyond the physical body. ...

FYI - his scientific papers: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeff-Tarrant
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
Interesting. Sorry, I lost my train of thought and posted...am now adding to it.

I think experiences are highly important, and I think there should be rigorous studies of experiences to see if there might be something going on that can be detected independently, and whether that data can be replicated and expanded on.
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Note that this is not about whether or not a God or gods exist, but about the capabilities of the human brain. It is to me about testing some claims using the tools of science and demonstrating that what we're capable of goes beyond our ordinary awareness. Thus I've started this thread under "paranormal discussion only"

As A Scientist, I Didn’t Believe In Psychic Powers. Then I Experienced Something That Changed My Life.

...
I began reading magazines like The Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic, which used critical thinking to debunk extraordinary claims. From this perspective, humans were simply viewed as very good at deluding and fooling ourselves. Rational and logical thinking dictates that we see belief in ghosts and paranormal abilities as psychological reactions and tricks of the mind.

Meanwhile, my psychology training program was shaping a particular way of viewing the world — that an atheistic, logical, and rational approach was the only one with validity. Belief in the paranormal was associated with immaturity (at best) and psychopathology (at worst). Consciousness was seen as arising from the neural connections of the brain. When we stop breathing and the brain ceases its functions, consciousness is lost, and the body decays. There is no God. There are no ghosts. Nothing is real unless science can prove it. I was no longer open to experiences and possibilities outside the realm of what was considered “normal,” but that was all about to change.
...
Apparently, Janet began spontaneously speaking South American tribal languages after participating in a holotropic breathwork session. What a relief! No bad news after all. Wait, what!? Spontaneously speaking South American tribal languages? I can see why he would be cautious about sharing this news. It sounded ridiculous.
...
Janet knew that I conducted EEG brain imaging and was open to participating in a series of experiments to measure what was happening in her brain when she allowed the languages to come through. One of the first things I noticed was a significant change in the EEG signals coming from sensor locations in the back right quadrant of the brain. Instead of the normal, nice, neat patterns we expect to see, these signals jumped off the screen and almost looked like seizure activity. After double and triple-checking my equipment and finding the same change in activity on several testing occasions, I had to accept that something dramatic was happening in Janet’s brain.
It turns out that the specific location involved was in the right parietal lobe (RPL). This part of the brain is involved in defining and perceiving the self, self-related thoughts, perception of the body, and autobiographical memory. Basically, when this part of the brain is doing its job, it creates an understanding of the “self” as a separate and discrete entity associated with the definition of “me.” When this part of the brain is damaged or goes “off-line,” like it did with Janet, it is associated with feelings of spiritual transcendence and a softening of boundaries between “self” and “other.”

Somehow, it appeared Janet was able to temporarily disrupt the functioning of her RPL, presumably allowing her to shift her consciousness in a way that some would claim allowed other forms of consciousness to speak through her. Despite what I thought I knew about reality, and as crazy as it sounded, I was left with the conclusion that Janet was somehow channeling several people, beings, or entities.
...
However, I have seen enough to make me believe that our minds are capable of much more than most of us dare to imagine. While we may not fully understand how or why, it seems clear to me now that psi abilities are a natural and normal part of human experience, and that scientists should dedicate more time and resources to exploring them.
...
Personally, this exploration has opened my mind to a whole new world of possibility. Having witnessed “the impossible” on numerous occasions — in scientific settings, no less — I have come to accept that consciousness can extend far beyond the physical body. ...

FYI - his scientific papers: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeff-Tarrant
I doubt he will succeed in any of the amazing Randi challenges on psychic power.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I doubt he will succeed in any of the amazing Randi challenges on psychic power.
That test requires "Failure to display a 100% success rate in the open test would cause their immediate disqualification." This research is not about such things but about speaking a language the person did not know and what happened in the brain when she did that. So your point is not relevant.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That test requires "Failure to display a 100% success rate in the open test would cause their immediate disqualification." This research is not about such things but about speaking a language the person did not know and what happened in the brain when she did that. So your point is not relevant.
I had to say it anyways just to get it out of my system.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
While I understand the particular journey the writer took - as an adherent of scientism they were already closed-minded towards any way of seeing and knowing that didn't fall within the limited confines of science-as-dogma - they're still couching it all in "scientific" terms. Maybe someday the writer will get there and understand there are many ways of knowing.

I personally feel no need to test my religious practices that some would consider "psychic" with science. It simply isn't needed. I know through abundant personal experience that I have capabilities beyond what some would consider "ordinary awareness." These things are routine for me. It happens when I talk to trees, it happens when I do ritual, it happens when I feel nwyfre, and on and on. And there is no need at all to force the square peg of science into the round hole that is these experiences. Use the round peg in the round hole. That's what it's for.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
According to science, humans have been on earth for over million years, while human written and spoken language are much younger. These are 5000 years ago for writing and maybe 20-30,000 years ago for advanced spoken. If these humans modes of communication are so new, compared to the earliest history of humans, how did the earliest humans communicate?

Many psychologists assume you cannot think without formal language. How did the earliest humans think without formal spoken language? There are other ways the brain can do this. Some may appear like they exceed the limitations of modern language transfer. A soccer team can integrate the entire team to action, in a dynamic game situation, without words; thought transfer/inference.

Say we gather one person, from each of the 7000 languages currently spoken on the earth, in a large lecture hall. I am on stage and I place things on the table, and each person tells me what they see in their native tongue. What you will find is spoken language is very subjective, since any noise or sound can be used to represent anything; if the clan agrees. There is rarely any cause and effect between anything and the sound used to represent it. I have never heard a cat, say the sound "cat". Why was that chosen?

What that all means is consciousness from spoken language, is a subjective form of consciousness, since the data used as its platform is not based on cause and effect, in any natural way, based to our human five senses; any sound will do. The 7000 world languages are testament to the subjectivity of language. It is hard to find truth with language, since the very deck is subjectively stacked. This is why law can be gamed; it uses a crooked deck of cards. This upgrade to spoken language may not have been an improvement, beyond the subjective needs of the newly forming ego. Subjectivity allows for more choices; less constrained to cause and effect.

Next, I will do another experiment. Now I will place different objects on the table, and have all the people who speak all the 7000 languages, stay quiet, while they draw each object as best they can. Now we will get 7000 similar art renditions of each object. This universal and even objective effect is because there is also a natural visual language. This language is based on photons and an objective system of colors, tones, textures, geometry etc. The visual language is the same for all cultures, unless tainted by spoken language; that is yucky. If your consciousness is based only on language, then you may not an object, with objectivity any longer; it will sink into the sponge.

This contrast is why scientists will read published papers; spoken language, but most still agree on the need to run more experiments to see for themselves; use the language of sight, for the final objective assessment. Spoken language can game the system, where visual is more objective to sensory reality.

If we assume we cannot think without language and language is subjective, then the type of consciousness that uses only this verbal system may not be objective; ego. There is lot of bull out there, due to too much dependence on the spongy system of spoken language; opinions.

My guess is the earliest humans, before the subjectivity of spoken language; symbolic tower of Babel and all forms of subjective verbal babbling, humans grunted but used mostly the visual language, which would include internal visual imagery; mind''s eyes. Build the Pyramids. This connection is often today associated with some forms of ESP; internal data crunching, that uses the visual data input, and then extrapolates that into an internal visual image output; :sparkles:.

This appears to come from older parts of the brain, that got repressed, due to subjectivity of spoken language, that can see or not see, what it wants to see, since it defaults to subjectivity; group fear of novelty.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Note that this is not about whether or not a God or gods exist, but about the capabilities of the human brain. It is to me about testing some claims using the tools of science and demonstrating that what we're capable of goes beyond our ordinary awareness. Thus I've started this thread under "paranormal discussion only"

As A Scientist, I Didn’t Believe In Psychic Powers. Then I Experienced Something That Changed My Life.
Very interesting, My journey was much like the author in that at one time I believed only the 'normal' was really real and that's that. I changed too when I saw evidence (like the author did) that things do really occur that dramatically fall outside of anything explainable with the accepted materialist paradigm. For me the started was people with NDEs telling of events in other rooms away from their bodies. But the ability to speak in South American native languages not even recognized by the speaker would be another such paradigm breaker.

But an interesting thing to me is how dogmatic materialists will blow over the evidence presented by this scientist in the OP in a knee-jerk attempt to hold materialism on its pedestal. They would say this Janet case from the OP is either a fraud, or was speaking gibberish misinterpreted as a real language, or had overheard the language in the past or some other explanation that saves materialism.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
But an interesting thing to me is how dogmatic materialists will blow over the evidence presented by this scientist in the OP in a knee-jerk attempt to hold materialism on its pedestal. They would say this Janet case from the OP is either a fraud, or was speaking gibberish misinterpreted as a real language, or had overheard the language in the past or some other explanation that saves materialism.
Materialists are also skeptical of work by other materialists.
There could be error, fraud, or a materialistic explanation
not yet thought of. Fans of the supernatural are always
making claims of evidence. The vast majority turn out to
rank up with sightings of Elvis & Sasquatch together in a
Wallmart in Topeka KS. Yet sometimes what at first seems
paranormal is not, eg, witch doctors employing what turns
out to be the placebo effect.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Materialists are also skeptical of work by other materialists.
There could be error, fraud, or a materialistic explanation
not yet thought of. Fans of the supernatural are always
making claims of evidence. The vast majority turn out to
rank up with sightings of Elvis & Sasquatch together in a
Wallmart in Topeka KS. Yet sometimes what at first seems
paranormal is not, eg, witch doctors employing what turns
out to be the placebo effect.
Serious people like the OP scientist I think are at a the most respectable level of study and inquiry. Serious science can occur dismissing all the hubris stuff. Comments like yours strike me as a too easy runaway. I am stubborn enough to stick around and determine what is most reasonable to believe.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Serious people like the OP scientist I think are at a the most respectable level of study and inquiry. Serious science can occur dismissing all the hubris stuff. Comments like yours strike me as a too easy runaway. I am stubborn enough to stick around and determine what is most reasonable to believe.
The big thing about this study is that there's a direct link between being able to speak a language that the person does not know and a change in the brain demonstrated by a scan. So we have a clear correlation. It could be caused by past lives in a different culture. It could be caused because consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain What if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain? Observational and empirical challenges to materialistic models and perhaps non-local or from other mechanisms.

In other words, this is a first step in what could be a very interesting set of experiments.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Serious people like the OP scientist I think are at a the most respectable level of study and inquiry. Serious science can occur dismissing all the hubris stuff.
Being respectable doesn't mean infallible.
Many respectable scientists have made mistaken
claims, eg, Albert Einstein, William Shockley.
Comments like yours strike me as a too easy runaway.
Would you say that I shouldn't be skeptical of
astounding claims that haven't been repeatedly
independently verified by others?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Being respectable doesn't mean infallible.
Many respectable scientists have made mistaken
claims, eg, Albert Einstein, William Shockley.
Because no one should be labelled 'infallible' does not mean we should not consider people seriously. Newton. Einstein, Darwin, etcetera have all contributed.

Would you say that I shouldn't be skeptical of
astounding claims that haven't been repeatedly
independently verified by others?
I am all for open-minded skepticism. But I think the prejudice level against 'parapsychology' is by now unwarranted and really more stems from a materialist prejudice. Dr. Dean Radin talks about over a thousand studies on five continents supporting psi abilities amounting to some fantastic odds against chance. But I think the 'it hasn't been reproduced' mantra-meme is just that and not warranted by the facts.

Now xenoglossy is not a new claim but the brain monitoring is probably novel. This case I'd say is at least compelling evidence and not proof. Enough pieces of compelling evidence and I even with a skeptical mind can come to believe something is highly likely (if not proved).
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Because no one should be labelled 'infallible' does not mean we should not consider people seriously. Newton. Einstein, Darwin, etcetera have all contributed.
Give me something worthy of consideration, &
I'll consider it. But with great novelty, comes
great requirement for independent verification.
That was the case with cold fusion. (Remember
that?) Turned out that no one could repeat the
claimed results of Pons & Fleischmann.
I am all for open-minded skepticism.
You seemed dismissive of my skepticism above.
But I think the prejudice level against 'parapsychology' is by now unwarranted and really more stems from a materialist prejudice.
Given the woo woo & many loopy unfounded
claims by para-fans, it should be called bias
rather than prejudice.
Dr. Dean Radin talks about over a thousand studies on five continents supporting psi abilities amounting to some fantastic odds against chance. But I think the 'it hasn't been reproduced' mantra-meme is just that and not warranted by the facts.
There are many many bad concepts that receive
thousands of confirming claims by like minded
folk, eg, anti-evolution sites.
If psychic powers are all that cromlulent, I'd
expect more coverage in science media.
But I hear nothing.
Now xenoglossy is not a new claim but the brain monitoring is probably novel. This case I'd say is at least compelling evidence and not proof. Enough pieces of compelling evidence and I even with a skeptical mind can come to believe something is highly likely (if not proved).
True believers always claim their evidence is
compelling. Indeed it is to them. I'm not quick
to leap to belief....& this includes materialistic
claims too. I've never regretted not jumping
on a bandwagon too soon.

Is this discussion of materialism OK in the
Paranormal Discussion Only forum? Anyway,
note that I'm not debating the cromlulence
of the claims in the OP. I've no dis-proof
of them.
 
Last edited:

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Give me something worthy of consideration, &
I'll consider it. But with great novelty, comes
great requirement for independent verification.
That was the case with cold fusion. (Remember
that?) Turned out that no one could repeat the
claimed results of Pons & Fleischmann.

You seemed dismissive of my skepticism above.

Given the woo woo & many loopy unfounded
claims by para-fans, it should be called bias
rather than prejudice.

There are many many bad concepts that receive
thousands of confirming claims by like minded
folk, eg, anti-evolution sites.
If psychic powers are all that cromlulent, I'd
expect more coverage in science media.
But I hear nothing.

True believers always claim their evidence is
compelling. Indeed it is to them. I'm not quick
to leap to belief....& this includes materialistic
claims too. I've never regretted not jumping
on a bandwagon too soon.

Is this discussion of materialism OK in the
Paranormal Discussion Only forum? Anyway,
note that I'm not debating the cromlulence
of the claims in the OP. I've no dis-proof
of them.
Well the correct level of skepticism is more an opinion than a science.

For me, the paranormal is not a fringe subject as it is for the majority. It is among my very top interests so I’ve looked into it more than the 99% and have concluded that things do occur that dramatically don’t fit in the materialist paradigm. I feel my level of skepticism is healthy.

Well we are not likely to flip each other’s paradigms with more evidence and argumentation.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well the correct level of skepticism is more an opinion than a science.
I'm entitled to my level,
just as you are to yours.
For me, the paranormal is not a fringe subject as it is for the majority. It is among my very top interests so I’ve looked into it more than the 99% and have concluded that things do occur that dramatically don’t fit in the materialist paradigm. I feel my level of skepticism is healthy.

Well we are not likely to flip each other’s paradigms with more evidence and argumentation.
I'm not trying to convince you to change your views.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
brain monitoring is probably novel.

That is the key piece that I created this thread to focus on. And specifically where in the brain the scan found the change:

This part of the brain is involved in defining and perceiving the self, self-related thoughts, perception of the body, and autobiographical memory. Basically, when this part of the brain is doing its job, it creates an understanding of the “self” as a separate and discrete entity associated with the definition of “me.” When this part of the brain is damaged or goes “off-line,” like it did with Janet, it is associated with feelings of spiritual transcendence and a softening of boundaries between “self” and “other.”
 
Top