The 2013 annual conference of the Society for Psychical Research took place at Swanea University in Swansea, Wales, UK from September 6-8. This was one of the most interesting conference I have attended, since my primary interest in psychical research is the survival issue, and many of the papers dealt with survival. I was able to attend most sessions; I wanted to see the ruins of Oystermouth Castle when I was there, so I missed some sessions to walk to Mumbles. It was a grand site, well worth seeing.
Alan Murdie did a fine job as Chairman of the Program Committee and MC. He is a worthy successor to Bernard Carr, who has done a splendid job the past thirty years in the same role. The first paper, by John Poynton, was entitled “Different Vibrations or Different Spaces? A Basic Question in Psi Research.” As I listened to this fascinating paper, my mind wandered back to Sunday School class when I was in high school. The teacher, Ken Schott, said that Heaven “could be in this very room, but in a different dimension,” and since then I have been intrigued with that idea. Professor Poynton surveyed possible locations of OBE survival, dividing the options into:
(1) single field theories, in which there is one single physical space (this he called “the common view” and
(2) many field theories, in which physical and OBE bodies occupy two different spaces of some kind (which he stated is the more common view in scientific settings).
Problems with single field theories include:
(1) How can the OBE body displace matter—“Kant’s Problem.”
(2) OBE space does not seem to be wholly isomorphic with physical space.
(3) OBE experiences are of a different quality than experiences in physical space.
(4) The theories are illogical—they seem to posit an outdated medieval world which Heaven and Hell are literally above the physical world.
In many field theories, different spaces may be viewed simultaneously—this can easily reduce to the single field idea. There are two many field alternatives to single field theories:
(1) Unnested—different spatial fields/worlds.
(2) Nexted—different superimposed spatial fields with a different hyperspace with faster vibrations.
Stevenson and Whiteman seem to assume non-nested spaces.
The nested view is held by the spiritualists—it holds there is an objectively real spirit world in the same space as we exist, but the matter vibrates more rapidly.
There may be a hierarchy of spaces, such as physical space, the space of paranormal experiences, and the space of mystical experiences.
Theorists suggest two ways layers may be organized:
(1) Like layers through a cake (Carr, Smythes)
(2) Like a Russian doll (Findley)
Prof. Poynton raised the important issue of whether human beings are capable of experiencing a four-dimensional world. Kant denied that we could [for Kant, space—as well as time—are forms of sensibility that structure our sense experience and are necessary and universal forms in the mind that we impose on the world. Kant believe the form of sensibility that is space to be three dimensional by necessity]. Prof. Poynton mentioned a fascinating account of an NDE by the Roman historian Plutarch in which the NDEr could see in four directions at once.
Prof. Poynton also raises the interesting Aristotelian point of how much do we know what fundamental processes (potentiality and actualization of potential) that underlie the manifestation for an observer of any spatial world and the object experienced? How much do (and can) we know about the constitution of non-physical objects.
Michael Whiteman uses words like “light” or “noetic” space. [Here I would point out that a medieval thinker overlooked in many discussions of psi is Robert Grosseteste (1168-1253), who believed that all was made of light and that light is the medium between matter and spirit]. Jean-Pierre Jourdan prefers to posit a “fifth dimension.” Bernard Carr prefers the term “hyperphysics.” His position is that the extra dimensions are time-like—different levels of the “specious present” but in the same space.
Professor Poynton’s paper was one of the most interesting at the conference. It was, by nature, highly speculative, but the speculations on multiple spaces (or times) seem reasonable and hopefully can generate further research that can aid in our understanding of OBEs, NDEs, and a possible “afterlife world.”
dwevansmd@ntlworld.com
Sep 18, 2013 @ 21:42:14
Thanks for this Michael. I had been wondering if you’d been over for this conference yet. I hope you saw something of the Gower Coast in all its beauty – in reasonably fine weather …. David
gratiaetnatura
Sep 18, 2013 @ 21:52:21
David, good to hear from you–I saw the coast from Mumbles almost all the way back to Swansea and picked up a few seashells, though most are the same kind we find in NC. Folks were very nice in Wales for the most part, though a few had a bit of Celtic “tartness.”
John Burns
Oct 05, 2013 @ 19:39:35
There is a value in paying close attention to the structure of the dream world rather than its content. In the dream world one has a body, there are places, other people, and of course events occur. One enters this world by falling asleep or entering a hypnotic trance. It is not clear how one would establish the waking world as more “real” than the dream world. Everything claimed for the waking world can be claimed for the dream world. Perhaps, though I have not myself had this experience, there are scientists in the dream world that study the dream body of a waking person. Just how many worlds there are is not known to me, but I would think quite a number. As you mention there would be the mystical world. Of course, all these are worlds and have in common form. Presumably all these many worlds are sustained by a common energy. Since we are living in an age of science the most convincing explanations will run along those lines. However, involving complex mathematical ideas may be too much for most persons.
Anyone especially fond of Aristotle or Aquinas may find they have problems since the soul is defined as the form of the physical body. Now, it would make sense to say that the soul is responsible for the body’s shape. And towards the end of the 13th and well into the 14th century the Church became quite obsessed with “bodiliness”. And with enhancing as much as possible the distance between man and God which the Church was happy to fill as mediator. But once the body dies and decays the soul has no substance. It is like the mathematical sphere. The ball is an embodiment of sphereness. A Platonists can avoid all this.
All our explanations in the end lose their appeal and are discarded. Already serious problem are arising with respect to Einstein’s theories, quantum mechanics, the red shift, the big bang theory, (originated by a Catholic priest in the 1920’s and popularized by Gamow). The more we simply go on our own direct experience the more we see that there are forms of various sorts that appear and vanish. The appearing and disappearing we term experiences. Beyond that we have hypothesis, theories, deductions, inferences, inductions, ideas, guesses . . .
John Burns
Nov 14, 2013 @ 04:21:57
This is off topic but important; and I do not know where to put it. [I hope your absence is not due to illness.] If you have ever come across Robert Michels you may know about the iron law of oligarchy.
“The fundamental sociological law of political parties (the term ‘political’ being here used in its most comprehensive sense) may be formulated in the following terms: ‘It is organization which gives birth to the domination of the elected over the electors, of the mandataries over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegators. Who says organization, says oligarchy.'” –Robert Michels
In this essay “The Iron Law of Oligarchy, Revisited”
http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/09/the-iron-law-of-oligarchy-revisited.html
the author comes to a true and interesting conclusion which I believe you will appreciate. Among other things I believe Michels vindicates Plato’s Republic. You may not agree but it seems Plato intuited the iron law of oligarchy and decided to work with it rather than engage in fruitless struggle.
gratiaetnatura
Nov 15, 2013 @ 05:23:51
John, I’m fine–I have been busy revising a novel and working on other writing projects as well as the usual tasks of teaching and grading papers. I hope to continue posting on the SPR conference soon.