
Electrochemical Events in the Brain Information Processing in Neural Networks,
and the Phenomenon of Consciousness

by

Stephen Bernath Bhaktivedanta Institute Muskauer Strasse 27 1000 Berlin 36
Germany

Copyright 1993 by Stephen Bernath All Rights Reserved.

ABSTRACT: Consciousness is analyzed and recognized as a phenomenon that is
qualitatively distinct from electrochemical reactions in the brain. Similarly,
it is analyzed and recognized to be fundamentally different from the
information processing of neural networks. Just as physicists recognize
electric charge to be an irreducible element in physical systems, the
hypothesis is considered that consciousness is an irreducible element of
reality. Consciousness is quantized in units, each one of which is called "the
conscious self." Empirical evidence for the self is discussed. This hypothesis
accounts for the phenomenon of consciousness, yet it raises questions about the
nature of the interface between the self and his physical body. Such questions
are dealt with by taking advantage of recent discoveries in the branch of
mathematical physics known as "deterministic chaos", from which we learn that
both the classical and quantum mechanical laws of physics are "flexible" enough
to allow for interaction between the quantum of consciousness called the self
and his physical body without violating these laws.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

1. The intrinsic nature of consciousness

1.1 Panpsychism

1.2 The hypothesis that consciousness is a fundamental, irreducible aspect of
reality

2. How the interface works between the fundamental particle of consciousness
called the self and his physical body

2.1 Sense perception: The flow of information from the physical body to the
self

2.1.1 The process of vision

2.1.1.1 Pattern recognition

2.1.1.2 The perception of color

2.1.1.3 The processing of visual information in the brain

2.1.1.4 Certain neurons respond only to specific shapes in the visual field

2.1.1.5 How signals are generated within neurons and transmitted to other
neurons

2.1.1.6 Sophisticated pattern recognition in the brain

2.1.1.7 The nature of the PNP linkage

2.2 Willed action: The flow of information from the self to his physical body

2.2.1 Deterministic chaos: natural amplification processes in physical systems
allow the superself to interact with matter without violating the laws of
physics

3. Empirical evidence for the quantum of consciousness called the self

3.1 Autoscopic reports during cardiopulmonary resuscitation

3.2 Evidence suggesting that the conscious self can move from one physical body
to another

3.2.1 The case of Gopal Gupta

3.2.1.1 Evidence that casts doubt on the hypotheses of fraud and normal means
of communication as explanations of the case of Gopal Gupta

3.2.1.2 Evidence suggesting migration of the conscious self from one body to
another body, not extrasensory perception

3.2.2 Cases in which a child claims to remember a previous life are not rare

3.2.3 Possession seems to be accompanied by an abrupt and striking change of
behavior: The case of Jasbir

3.2.4 Functioning without a physical body

3.2.5 Distinctive physical marks: The case of Corliss Chotkin, Jr.

3.2.6 If reincarnation is actually true, then why is the human population on
earth increasing?

3.2.7 If the conscious self is completely different from his physical brain,
then why does damage to specific parts of the brain result in the loss of
specific abilities?

4. Conclusion

Bibliography

                               ****************

Acknowledgements: Many of the ideas that I present in this paper, such as the
hypothesis of consciousness as an irreducible, fundamental aspect of reality
analagous to the phenomenon of electric charge in physical systems; the need
for a conscious entity to interpret the electrochemical events in the brain;
and recent discoveries in the field of deterministic chaos which render the
laws of physics flexible enough to allow interaction between the conscious self
and his physical body, come originally from Dr. Richard Thompson,
a mathematician at the Bhaktivedanta Institute in San Diego, California. I am
deeply appreciative for his kind help and inspiration. I also wish to thank
neurophysiologists Margaret Livingstone and John Eccles for providing detailed
information about the process of visual perception, Dr. Michael Sabom for
providing detailed reports of autoscopic phenomena and a scholarly analysis of
their significance, and Dr. Ian Stevenson for providing well documented cases
that suggest that the conscious self can move from one physical body to
another.

1. The intrinsic nature of consciousness

Since time immemorial philosophers have asked the question: "Who am I?" The
obvious response to this question is, of course, "I am my physical body." This
is natural since, if my body is injured, I feel pain. If the injury is severe
enough, then my ability to perform certain activities is impaired. Also,
certain stimuli in relation to my body result in an experience of pleasure for
me. In other words, a change in the physiochemical situation of my body results
in a change in the contents of my consciousness. Thus, our ordinary daily
experiences seem to repeatedly reinforce our conviction that we are our bodies.
No one would deny that there is a relationship between me and my body, but the
real question is: Precisely what is this relationship? Those who are more
sophisticated will undoubtedly say that, in addition to being my body, I am
also my mind and intelligence. But are not the terms "mind" and "intelligence"
nothing more than mere names for elaborate systems of electrochemical reactions
in the brain? If this is true, then the real thing taking place are the
electrochemical reactions, and the words "mind" and "intelligence" are just
superficial names for these more fundamental reactions. Ultimately, then, those
who answer the question "Who are you?" by saying "I am my physical body" or "I
am my body, mind and intelligence" are really saying that "I am a complicated
system of coordinated electrochemical reactions in my physical brain and body."
Carried to its logical conclusion, this really means that ultimately I do not
exist. The real thing occuring are the electrochemical interactions, and the
word "I" is just a term for a certain temporary state of organization in the
underlying chemical phenomena. The philosophical schools known as
"functionalism" and "behaviorism" maintain that all aspects of a human being
can be adequately described in this way. Functionalism is based on the concept
that all human behavior can be duplicated by appropriate computer programs, and
it provides the philosophical basis for research in the branch of computer
science called "artificial intelligence". According to these philosophies,
a complete description of human behavior can be given in the following way:

1. A certain environmental stimulus is specified as the input.

2. The senses of the physical body generate a systematic pattern of
electrochemical pulses that encodes certain aspects of this input stimulus.

3. Transmission of this systematic pattern of pulses to the brain.

4. The performance of sophisticated information processing operations
(analogous to those performed in computers) on this pattern of pulses by
elaborate neural networks in the brain. The result of these operations is the
production of a pattern of output electrochemical pulses.

5. This output pattern is transmitted along certain motor nerves to the
appropriate muscles.

6. This results in a sequence of coordinated muscular contractions that carry
out a desired activity. This constitutes a person's external observable
behavior.

Let us suppose, for example, that I hit my thumb with a hammer. This results in
damage to the tissues of the thumb. Nerves in the thumb are stimulated and
a systematic pattern of electrical pulses is transmitted to the brain. Certain
aspects of the physiological damage in the thumb are encoded in this pattern of
electrical pulses. According to neurophysiology, the brain contains billions of
neurons which are interconnected in such a way that they form special circuits
called neural networks that are able to perform sophisticated information
processing tasks. These neural networks are analogous to the networks of
silicon logic gates used in computers. It is believed that certain neural
networks process the pattern of electrical pulses coming from the senses and
extract certain features of this pattern. I will discuss this in greater detail
in the second chapter. When the pattern of electrical pulses from the senses
reaches the brain, it causes a highly complicated pattern of changes to take
place in the neurons there. Various electrochemical reactions take place such
as the pumping of sodium and potassium ions through neural cell walls and the
releasing of certain molecules that function as neurotransmitters. It is by
means of reactions such as these that electrical pulses are transmitted from
one neuron to another (this is described in greater detail in section 2.1.1.5).
These kinds of reactions are also responsible for the logical functioning of
neurons. By this it is meant that, given a number of input signals, a neuron
will produce an appropriate output signal. In this regard the functioning of
a neuron is analagous to the functioning of a silicon logic gate, such as an
"and" gate or an "or" gate, used in modern computers. In general, these kinds
of reactions can be described in terms of the motion of charged particles and
the formation and dissolution of various chemical bonds. The division of
physics that describes the formation of chemical bonds is called quantum
mechanics. The quantum mechanical picture of an atom shows certain regions,
called electron orbitals, where electrons have a high probability of being
found. The way in which the electron orbitals of an atom interact with those of
other atoms determines the nature of the chemical bonding between these atoms.
Thus, according to the modern scientific picture, the electrochemical
activities in the brain reduce down to a very long list of the activities and
interactions of various subatomic particles such as electrons. Each of these
particles possesses only a few simple characteristics such as charge, mass and
spin. Thus the mode of interaction and characteristics of each of these
subatomic particles could be described by a few simple equations or a short
list of numbers. Ultimately, the entire activity of the brain can be described
as a long list of numbers corresponding to the states of the various subatomic
particles that make up the brain. The numbers in this list would be changing
constantly as the various electrochemical states of the brain change in
response to changes in the physical body and its environment. A pattern of
output pulses is generated by the action of certain neural networks in the
brain. This output pattern is transmitted along certain motor nerves to various
muscles, such as the muscles of the hand and arm, resulting in a characteristic
waving of the hand, and to certain facial muscles, resulting in 
a characteristic contortion of the face. Part of the output pattern is also
transmitted to the muscles that control the vocal chords, resulting in yelling
and cursing. In this way, behaviorists and functionalists describe the activity
of hitting one's thumb with a hammer. We note that although the details may
vary, they would also describe other human behavior, such as eating, running,
laughing, analyzing mathematical equations, falling in love, etc in the same
basic way. In fact, behaviorists and functionalists are committed to the
philosophy that all human behavior without exception can be completely
described in similar terms -- in other words, in terms of the activities of
neural networks in the brain and, more generally, electrochemical reactions in
the body. There are certain types of long-term purposeful behavior such as, for
example, embarking on an eight-year study program to achieve a Ph.D. degree in
physics, that involve elaborate planning and activity in which a person's
actions are obviously more than just immediate reactions to environmental
stimuli. Such behavior would be described by behaviorists as the result of past
environmental stimuli working in conjunction with certain neural networks in
the brain. For example, suppose that a father strongly desires that his son
become a physicist. When the child is young the father naturally tries to
interest his son in physics in many different ways over a period of many years.
This is the environmental stimulus, and it is stored in the child's memory
which, according to behaviorists, must also be a physiochemical process in the
brain. They would also say that working in conjunction with this stimulus
stored in the memory are elaborate neural networks that inspire one with 
a strong drive to become a success in his chosen field. This is the position of
the functionalists and similar behavioristic philosophers. What can we say
about this position? Such a description involving the action of neural networks
in the brain, if elaborated in sufficient detail, may be an adequate
explanation for certain types of human behavior such as those involving
immediate responses to certain environmental stimuli. But it is not at all
clear that such a description is an adequate explanation for long-term
purposeful behavior. It is certainly true that behaviorists have not yet
rigorously identified which neural networks in the brain are actually
responsible for specific types of long-term goal-directed behavior. Which
neural networks inspire one with a strong drive to become a physicist? Which
neural networks are responsible for the intense interest in and life-long
dedication to music exhibited by great musicians and composers such as Mozart,
Beethoven and Bach? And which networks are responsible for the inspirations of
great artists such as Michelangelo? Although these questions are a challenge to
the behaviorists' position, there appears to be a much more serious challenge.
There appears to be an aspect of human existence that can not be adequately
described in terms of electrochemical phenomena in the physical brain and body.
This is the aspect of human conscious experience. When I hit my thumb with 
a hammer, I have a distinct conscious experience, which is the experience of 
a specific kind of pain. When I see a sunset I have a distinct conscious
experience. Each human activity gives rise to a specific conscious experience.
Careful thought about the meaning of conscious experience in general reveals
the fact that conscious experience is something qualitatively different from
the physical and electrochemical events described earlier. It is definitely
true that a specific pattern of electrochemical events in the brain gives rise
to a specific conscious experience, and I shall discuss this in great detail in
the second chapter. But the point I want to make here is that conscious
experience is completely different from electrochemical events and physical
phenomena in general. Consciousness of the act of hitting my thumb is different
from the act of hitting my thumb, and consciousness of electrochemical
phenomena is different from electrochemical phenomena. In order to account for
consciousness of something, there must be more than just that thing itself.
Human beings on this planet have a considerable number of features in common.
We are all born of similar parents, our physical bodies are similar, and our
goals and needs are also similar. It would therefore be exceedingly strange if
only one out of all of these billions of human beings had internal conscious
experience and all the others did not. Therefore it is reasonable to suppose
that all human beings possess internal conscious experience. My internal
individual conscious experience is certainly subjective, but the fact that all
human beings possess consciousness means that consciousness is an objective
feature of reality in general. Therefore, any philosophical system that fails
to explain the nature of consciousness must be drasticly incomplete. It is
noteworthy that prominent scientists in a number of fields have recognized the
distinction between consciousness of a material phenomenon and the material
phenomenon itself, including Roger Penrose, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford
University (1990); the Nobel Prize winning physicist Eugene Wigner (1964); the
Nobel Prize winning neurophysiologist John Eccles and prominent philosopher
Karl Popper (1977); and Jerry Fodor of the Artificial Intelligence Department
of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Although Professor Fodor is 
a proponent of functionalism, he nevertheless admitted (Fodor, 1981) that: 
"Many psychologists who are inclined to accept the functionalist framework are
nevertheless worried about the failure of functionalism to reveal much about
consciousness. Functionalists have made a few ingenious attempts to talk
themselves and their colleagues out of this worry, but they have not, in my
view, done so with much success." There seems to be a serious problem here. I
am conscious, but none of the structures or processes in my physical body and
brain can account for my consciousness.

1.1 Panpsychism

Some philosophers postulate that consciousness is an inherent feature of matter
itself; in other words, each arbitrarily small unit of matter possesses
consciousness. This philosophy is called "panpsychism". But the problem with
panpsychism is that, for example, if each electron in a man's brain (say the
brain of a man named Mr. Jones) were conscious, then the only consciousness in
his brain would be the billions of disunited individual states of consciousness
of each of the electrons and not the consciousness of Mr. Jones. The nature of
consciousness is such that individual consciousnesses do not combine to form an
overall consciousness. In order to illustrate this point, consider a version of
philosopher John Searle's Chinese Room example. Consider a computer that
consists of thousands of people sitting at desks in a very large room. Each
person receives a piece of paper from one of his neighbors (for the sake of
brevity, throughout this paper I use "his" in situations where "his or hers"
should be used. I hope that no one feels offended). On this paper are certain
marks. According to well defined rules, each person makes further marks on this
piece of paper and passes it to one of his neighbors. If the rules are properly
defined, this group of people can perform any information processing task now
performed by electronic computers. A computer can be physically embodied in
various forms, such as electric currents in silicon chips, the passing of
written notes among a group of people, a system of gears and wheels, etc. The
physical means whereby the calculations are performed is not important -- the
important thing is that the calculations are performed properly. Let us suppose
that the rules are defined in such a way that the group of people acting as
a computer (from now on called the group computer) is able to answer questions
in the Chinese language (it is now possible to program electronic computers to
provide reasonable answers to certain questions in human languages). Let us
also consider the situation in which none of the people in the group
understands Chinese or knows that the purpose of the group is to answer
questions in Chinese. Each person is simply making marks on paper in 
a mechanical fashion without understanding the purpose of this activity. A piece
of paper containing a question written in Chinese enters through one door of
the room of the group computer. The people make marks on pieces of paper
according to the rules. The result of this is a series of Chinese characters
that exit through the other door of the room. If the people sitting at the
desks have followed the instructions properly, this group computer is able to
provide realistic answers to questions in Chinese. But none of the people
understand Chinese. Within the room the only type of consciousness present is
that of each person, who is only conscious of mechanically making marks on 
a piece of paper, and who is not even conscious of the purpose of the group.
There is no overall consciousness of answering questions in Chinese. This is
what we mean when we say that there is no overall or group consciousness in 
a group of conscious persons. Sometimes people talk about a "group spirit or
consciousness" but this is an innacurate use of the word consciousness. Of
course, the people in a group may influence each other in various ways. But the
people in a group influence the contents of each other's consciousness, they do
not change the fundamental fact that each person has his own individual
conscious experience, and these individual conscious experiences are the only
kind of conscious experience present in the group. Now let us compare this
group of conscious persons to the group of hypothetical conscious electrons in
Mr. Jones' brain. Granting that each electron is conscious, we still have the
problem that each electron has its own individual conscious experience. Thus
there would be a multitude of disunited individual conscious experiences of
each of the conscious electrons, but there would not be the consciousness of
Mr. Jones. Regardless of what each electron is conscious of, the only type of
consciousness in Mr. Jones' brain would be a multitude of such individual
electronic consciousnesses. If Mr. Jones happened to be walking down the
street, he would naturally be conscious of the people on the sidewalk and the
cars in the street. He is conscious of them because he possesses suitable
senses, such as eyes and ears, that are able to pick up gross material stimuli
(the existence of consciousness does not depend on senses, but in order to be
conscious of certain material phenomena, there must be suitable sensory
mechanisms to transmit material data to the conscious observer). According to
modern physics, electrons do not possess suitable senses, hence even if they
are conscious, the electrons within Mr. Jones' brain would be utterly unaware
of the cars and people on the street. We have used the example of electrons,
but the conclusion is the same if we consider any subatomic particle. Thus we
see that the philosophy of panpsychism is unable to account for human conscious
experience. How, then, can we account for human conscious experience? Earlier
we discussed how electrochemical activity in the brain fails to account for
human conscious experience (not granting any special property such as
consciousness to each unit of matter, but simply realizing that consciousness
does not emerge from the interaction of purely material elements). Then we
considered the philosophy (panpsychism) in which each arbitrarily small unit of
matter possesses consciousness. But this also fails to account for our
conscious experience.

1.2 The hypothesis that consciousness is a fundamental, irreducible aspect of
reality

Because consciousness does not emerge from the interaction of purely material
elements, it is not unreasonable to consider the hypothesis that consciousness
is a fundamental, irreducible aspect of reality. Mathematician Richard Thompson
(1989) points out that in physics, the phenomenon of electric charge is
considered to be fundamental and irreducible -- in other words, electric charge
can not be explained as the interaction of other, more fundamental, entities.
Electric charge must be postulated as an extra primitive element in physical
systems. Thus, within modern physics it is not unprecedented to recognize 
a fundamental quantity such as electric charge. Let us consider, then, the
hypothesis that consciousness, like electric charge, is an irreducible,
fundamental feature of reality. Each person has his own individual conscious
experience. Let us postulate, then, that within the body of each human being
there is a fundamental irreducible particle called "the conscious self" or just
"the self" for short. The reason that we have selected the words "the conscious
self" to describe this quantum of consciousness is because this particle is, in
essence, who we actually are. As outlined in the above discussion, we have been
logically forced, step by step, to this conclusion in order to account for
human conscious experience. Thus, according to this analysis, within the
physical body of each human being there is one particle, called "the self",
that identifies with that particular body and is able to use the senses of
that body. There may be many individual quanta of consciousness within each
physical body, but only one of them is able to use the senses of that body, and
only one of them identifies himself as that particular body. The self possesses
the power of consciousness and identity. I am actually the self, I am not my
physical body or brain. The physical body and brain are sophisticated machines.
In particular, the brain is a sophisticated information processing machine like
modern electronic computers. But I am the conscious self, and I am
qualitatively different from the physical and electrochemical interactions
taking place within the brain and other organs of my physical body. There is
undoubtedly a relationship between the electrochemical phenomena in my physical
body and the contents of my consciousness, but I (my actual self) am
fundamentally completely different from such electrochemical phenomena. This
raises many questions about the interaction between me and my physical body. In
particular, if I am completely different from my physical body, then why does
damage to my physical brain impair my ability? And how do I, who am
non-physical, interact with the structures of my physical body? What are the
mechanics of this interaction? If I am not my physical body, then why do I
identify myself as it? Why do I experience pain or pleasure when certain
physical and electrochemical reactions take place in my physical body? How do
such reactions give rise to my experience of pain or pleasure? These are all
questions of great importance, and in the next few sections I shall outline 
a hypothesis that may help to shed some light on them.


2. How the interface works between the fundamental particle of consciousness
called the self and his physical body

"Interactionism" is the technical philosophical term for a philosophy that
postulates a non-physical particle called the self that interacts with his
physical body. A central question in interactionistic philosophies is:
Precisely what is the nature of the interface between the self and his physical
body? Let us try to clarify the nature of this interface by examining the
processes of sense perception and willed action.

2.1 Sense perception: The flow of information from the physical body to the
conscious self

The conscious self who identifies with a particular physical body obtains
information about that body and its environment through the action of his
physical senses. It is important to recognize that we are not directly in
contact with the physical world! In fact, our only contact with the physical
world is through a very indirect means -- our physical senses. The reason that
this is described as indirect is that our physical senses break down the
stimuli coming from the physical world into a series of electrical pulses that
encodes certain features of these stimuli. This encoded information must be
decoded, or in other words, the original information from the physical world
must be reconstructed in order for the conscious self to understand it. It may
not be necessary to postulate such a decoding operation in order to explain
certain types of behavior, such as those which involve more or less immediate
responses to environmental stimuli, since such responses might be explicable in
terms of neural networks in accordance with the scheme that I outlined earlier
(chapter 1, steps 1 through 6). In fact, it is conceivable that a machine could
be built that duplicates such behavior (such a machine would perform steps 1
through 6 above). This is the goal of the field of endeavor known as "artificial
intelligence." Due to the great complexity of the human brain and body, man-made
machines are not yet able to adequately duplicate many aspects of human 
behavior, but it is hoped that technological advances may someday overcome this
problem. There appears to be no fundamental reason why a machine could not 
duplicate the encoding function of the senses and the subsequent information 
processing activities of the neural networks in the brain, since the human brain
and body are, according to modern science, nothing more than sophisticated 
machines. We simply have to figure out in greater detail precisely how the brain
works and then build a computer that can work in the same way. But if we want 
to explain how a person becomes conscious of environmental stimuli, then there 
must be a process whereby the complex electrochemical events in the brain are 
translated into the appropriate conscious experiences in the self. 
Let us now examine why such a translation process is needed and how it might 
work. The series of electrical pulses produced by the physical senses that 
encodes an environmental stimulus is transmitted to the brain where it changes 
the overall pattern of electrochemical states in the billions of neurons in 
the brain. Each human activity establishes a specific electrochemical pattern 
in the brain. For example, the act of hitting one's thumb with a hammer 
establishes one specific pattern, whereas the act of seeing a sunrise 
establishes another. The act of eating pizza establishes yet another. Each one
of the above examples, along with a huge variety of other bodily and mental 
stimuli routinely experienced by human beings, gives rise to a certain pattern.
Each one of these patterns is distinct from all the others. Let us consider 
the hypothetical situation in which you are looking inside someone's head and 
you are able to directly observe, at the molecular level, the electrochemical 
events that routinely take place in the brain. You would see activities such as
the pumping of sodium and potassium ions across neural cell walls and 
the releasing of certain molecules that act as neurotransmitters. You would also
see the formation and dissolution of various types of chemical bonds between 
the atoms. There are billions of such molecular events taking place every second
within the brain. 
It seems that, based on the latest research in neurophysiology, each particular
electrochemical pattern in the brain is actually a code for a specific conscious
experience, but you do not understand the language of electrochemical events 
in which the code is written, and thus you would be unable to realize what 
experience the person (whose brain you are observing) is having. To you,
it is just a meaningless pattern of electrochemical activity -- you have no
idea whether the person is experiencing pain or pleasure. To illustrate what we
mean by a "code", consider the English words that you are reading now. The
series of ink marks on this page are a code. The series of marks "g r a n d m o
t h e r" are ultimately nothing more than funny-looking marks on paper. 
A person who does not know that each letter is a code for a certain kind of 
sound and that each word has a specific meaning would surely see these letters 
and words as meaningless marks on paper. But those who understand English have
learned this code. For them, the marks "g r a n d m o t h e r" have a clear
meaning. (Try reading a language that uses characters the meaning of which you
do not know -- for example, Chinese, Arabic, Sanskrit or Greek). If that person
himself were somehow able to directly see, at the molecular level, these
electrochemical events in his own brain, he would also be unable to understand
what they mean! The conscious experience that he is having while engaging in
routine daily activities is correlated with the electrochemical events in his
brain, but the correlation is established in such a way that he is not aware of
how it is being established. Within the brain electrochemical activities take
place, and within the self various conscious experiences take place. Both of
these things are real. Now the question is: How is the correlation established
between these two real phenomena? The overall electrochemical pattern in the
brain changes constantly in response to changing environmental and internal
stimuli. A change in the electrochemical pattern in one's brain results in 
a change in the contents of one's consciousness. But the electrochemical pattern
is purely physical whereas the contents of consciousness are non-physical.
Precisely how is a change in something physical closely correlated with 
a change in something completely non-physical? Let us call this correlation 
a "PNP link ", where PNP means "Physical -- Non-physical". We shall explore the
nature of this link in the next few sections.

2.1.1 The process of vision

As a concrete example of the process of sense perception, let us consider
vision. Visual perception is taking place all the time within ourselves and
others, and thus most people do not regard it as a particularly noteworthy
achievement. But neurophysiologists who have analyzed in detail the workings of
the eye and brain and scientists who have tried to duplicate human visual
capabilities in machines have discovered the incredible sophistication of human
vision.

2.1.1.1 Pattern recognition

For example, for the last few decades, computer scientists working in the field
of artificial intelligence at top universities, such as the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), have worked very hard to try to program
computers to recognize objects the way even ordinary human beings can. The
seemingly simple act of recognizing apples and oranges is actually incredibly
complicated, since apples, oranges and other natural objects may have a range
of different shapes, sizes and colors, and appear different from different
angles and under different lighting conditions. Nevertheless, even unintelligent
human beings have no trouble recognizing such objects. But to get machines to do
so has thus far proven impossible. According to Dr. Richard Thompson (1989), 
computer scientists "have no idea how to represent the knowledge that a three-
year-old child has of his mother's kitchen." In other words, even the most 
sophisticated modern pattern recognition programs are unable to endow a machine 
with the ability to recognize ordinary household objects as well as a three-
year-old child. 
Suppose the goal is to distinguish apples from all other objects. Apples can be
a variety of sizes, colors, and shapes. Furthermore, they can be seen from 
a variety of different angles and under a variety of different lighting and 
background conditions. To distinguish apples from other objects clearly requires
very sophisticated programming procedures. What to speak of real objects that 
are, of course, exceedingly complex, even to get machines to discriminate 
between simple geometric shapes is a difficult task! To give an idea of how 
involved it is, according to Dr. Thompson (1981, p.120): "Many birds are highly 
discriminating in their response to the coloring and physical shapes of other 
birds. This means that they are able to make fine distinctions between complex
patterns of color and form. Yet computer programs that can discriminate between
simple geometric shapes have proven very difficult to write, and have involved 
many elaborate programming procedures. For example, one such program, called 
the 'MIT robot,' requires some 3.6 million bits of programming instructions." 
It is thus clear that pattern recognition involves highly sophisticated 
analysis. Moreover, not only are human beings and many kinds of animals able to
perform the sophisticated computations required to recognize real objects, they
are able to perform these computations in an incredibly short period of time 
(often in less than a second). According to neurophysiologists, neural networks
in the retina and various sections of the brain enable men and animals to 
accomplish visual pattern recognition. The brain and retina are able to perform
functions that are far superior to present-day computers. Yet, according to 
the modern conception, the brain and retina are nothing more than biological 
computers that use neurons as the logical elements. Hence, it should be 
possible, by devising clever enough experiments, to figure out how the brain 
and retina are performing sophisticated functions such as pattern recognition
in the real world. During the last few decades, a tremendous amount of research
work has in fact been devoted to this goal. Let us now look at some of 
the significant findings of this research.

2.1.1.2 The perception of color

The process of vision begins when light enters the eye and is focused on the
retina. The retina consists of several layers of cells. The rearmost layer
consists of special cells called "rods" and "cones" that are sensitive to light
(photoreceptors). The total number of rods in the human retina is about 100
million, and the total number of cones is about 10 million. Rods are more
sensitive to light than cones and are used under low light conditions in which
the cones do not operate. But rods are not capable of color vision which
explains why we see only black and white under low light conditions. Cones
contain special light-absorbing molecules called pigments. In the human eye,
there are three types of cones: The first type contains pigments that are most
sensitive to the short wavelengths of human vision (around 4000 Angstroms); the
second type contains pigments most sensitive to medium wavelengths (around 5000
to 6000 Angstroms); and the third type contains pigments most sensitive to long
wavelengths (around 7000 Angstroms). Although each of these pigments is most
sensitive to a given range of wavelengths, they nevertheless absorb light over
a larger range of wavelengths. Thus the output signal from each of these three
different types of cone cells is not very selective for wavelength, and hence
each cone cell does not provide very much information about the wavelength of
the light incident upon it. But if the outputs from the different types of cone
cells are compared with each other, the resultant signal is more selective for
wavelength. According to neurophysiologist Margaret Livingstone (1988, p.68) 
a special type of neural network compares the strength of the output signals 
from the three different types of cone cells and generates a systematic 
pattern of electrical pulses that encodes the result of this comparison 
operation. 
Such a systematic pattern is translated by the PNP linkage (as mentioned 
earlier, "PNP linkage" means "physical -- non-physical linkage") in such a way
that the self has the conscious experience of seeing a particular color. 
The conscious self can not understand by his own power what these patterns of 
pulses are supposed to mean. He is dependent on the PNP linkage to translate 
these patterns for him. Each pattern is a code for a particular color. Since 
people can be conscious of many different nuances of each of the major colors 
(such as yellow, red, blue, and green), there must be many different patterns 
each one of with codes for a particular nuance of color. Later in this section
I shall offer a detailed hypothesis concerning how the PNP linkage may operate. 
For the moment, however, it is important to note that although we commonly use 
the words "blue light" to describe light with wavelengths around 4000 Angstroms,
there is nothing inherently "blue" about electromagnetic radiation that happens
to have such a wavelength. Similarly, there is nothing inherently "green" about
electromagnetic energy that happens to have a wavelength around 5000 Angstroms,
nor is there anything inherently "red" about electromagnetic radiation that
happens to have a wavelength around 7000 Angstroms. "Red", "green", and "blue"
are non-physical states of consciousness in the self. They are qualitatively
completely different from electromagnetic energy, regardless of its wavelength.
Electromagnetic energy is just a kind of energy. Why should electromagnetic
energy having a wavelength of 4000 Angstroms happen to be correlated with the
conscious experience of seeing blue? Energy having a wavelength of 4000
Angstroms causes the three different types of cone cells in the retina to
generate specific output signals which in turn causes certain neural networks
to generate a systematic pattern of electrical pulses that is displayed in 
a specific region of the brain. But this display is nothing more than a set of
electrochemical events. Regardless of how sophisticated they are, it is true in
general that neural networks do nothing more than perform information
processing operations (such as comparing the strength of the output signals
from the different types of cone cells) and display the results in the form of
patterns of electrochemical events in neurons. Such patterns are qualitatively
completely different from the conscious experience of seeing blue. Therefore,
in order to create this conscious experience, something more than (and
qualitatively different from) neural machinery is required. It is for this
reason that I put forward the hypothesis of the PNP linkage. I do not lightly
introduce such a radical hypothesis (the idea of a PNP linkage in the brain is
radical in terms of the presently dominant mechanistic theories in the
biological sciences). It seems, however, that something of this sort is
required if we acknowledge the fact that conscious experiences are qualitatively
different from electrochemical events in the brain. 
As a concrete example of the process of color perception, let us suppose that 
a person is looking at a red car parked in front of a blue building. The red
light reflected from this car is focused on one section of his retina. The
three different types of cone cells in this section are thus exposed to this
red light. The cone cells in this section that are most sensitive to red light
produce signals that are stronger than the signals produced by the cones in
this section that are most sensitive to shorter wavelengths. The color
comparison neural networks in this section compare the strong signals from the
red cone cells with the relatively weaker signals from the other types of cone
cells and produce a specific pattern of electrical pulses that is a code for
the conscious experience of seeing the color red. This code is translated by
the PNP linkage in such a way that the self has the conscious experience of
seeing red light in the appropriate section of the visual field. If the person
who is looking at the red car is only (for example) two meters away from it,
then the image of the car would occupy a significant percentage of the retina
and hence the red light reflected from the car would be incident upon millions
of different cone cells (recall from before that the total number of cone cells
in the retina is approximately ten million). However, the cone cells situated
in the sections of the retina that receive the blue light reflected from the
building are stimulated in a different way. In these sections, the red cone
cells produce a relatively weak output signal whereas the blue cone cells
produce a comparitively stronger output signal. The color comparison neural
networks in these sections of the retina compare the outputs from the three
kinds of cone cells and produce a pattern of pulses that is a code for the
conscious experience of seeing the color blue. Light entering the eyes that is
not purely red, blue or green would result in various strengths of the output
signals of the three types of cone cells. The color comparison neural network
compares the relative strengths of the output signals from the different types
of cones and produces the appropriate pattern of pulses which, when translated
by the PNP linkage, results in the production of the conscious experience of
seeing the appropriate color.

2.1.1.3 The processing of visual information in the brain

The neural networks responsible for the analysis of various aspects of the
incoming light (such as its color and intensity) are situated in the retina and
various regions of the brain. There is considerable evidence that the analysis
takes place in steps along specific pathways. Dr. Livingstone (1988, p.68)
reported that electrical signals generated by the photoreceptor cells (rods and
cones) in the retina are not immediately transmitted along the optic nerve to
the brain. Instead, these signals are passed to special networks of neurons in
the retina which process them and then send them to another layer of neurons in
the retina called "ganglion cells". Ganglion cells are of two different types
-- large and small. The large cells do not discriminate between one type of
cone cell signal and another. They are not color selective and thus they are
not part of the color-analysis system. But the small ganglion cells
discriminate between the three different types of cone cells by comparing the
signals received from them. Thus the output signals from these small ganglion
cells are more color-discriminating than the input signals they receive from
the cone cells. The output signals from both the large and small ganglion cells
are transmitted along the optic nerves to the two "lateral geniculate bodies"
of the brain. Each of the two optic nerves consists of approximately a million
nerve fibers. Within the lateral geniculate bodies there are small neurons
(called "parvo" cells) and large neurons (called "magno" cells). The signals
from the small retinal ganglion cells are transmitted to the parvo cells, and
the signals from the large retinal ganglion cells are transmitted to the magno
cells. The parvo neurons are part of the system which processes information
about color contrast, and the magno neurons are part of the system which
processes information about luminance contrast. The functional significance of
the magno and parvo systems will become more clear as we trace the path of
visual information processing from the retina through various regions of the
brain. The output from the parvo and magno cells are then transmitted to
another region of the brain called "visual area 1" of the cerebral cortex
(situated at the rearmost part of the brain). Neurophysiologists describe
visual area 1 as consisting of six layers, one above the other. If visual area
1 is stained in a certain way, a special pattern of light and dark regions can
be observed in its upper layers. Dr. Livingstone and her colleagues decided to
call the dark regions "blobs", and the lighter regions that surround them
"interblobs." Clever tests revealed (Livingstone, 1988, p.71) that "the
interblobs receive input from the parvo system, layer 4B (of visual area 1)
receives input from the magno system and the blobs seem to receive input from
both." During the last few decades, numerous tests have been performed at 
a number of different universities in which a microelectrode was inserted into
various regions of visual area 1 and other parts of the brain. By carefully
positioning the microelectrode just outside of a neuron, one is able to detect
the electrical pulses produced by this particular neuron (Popper and Eccles,
1977, p.265) without disturbing its functioning. In a typical test, various
objects are displayed before the eyes (in other words, "in the visual field")
of a fully conscious person at the same time that the microelectrode is
positioned near a particular neuron in his brain. The goal is to determine
which types of visual stimuli cause this particular neuron to fire. As
mentioned earlier, Dr. Livingstone and her colleagues identified three
different subdivisions in visual area 1 ("blobs", "interblob regions", and
"layer 4B"). They measured the responses of cells in each of these three
subdivisions to various kinds of stimuli in the visual field, including shape,
position, distance, movement, color, brightness and size. They discovered that
the neurons in the various subdivisions displayed a great difference in their
responses (Livingstone, 1988, p.71): "The blobs contain cells that are highly
selective for color or brightness but are not at all selective for shape or
movement. Interblob cells are selective for orientation but not for color or
movement. An interblob cell may respond to a vertical bar, for instance,
regardless of how it moves or whether it is black, white or colored -- the only
criterion is that the bar be vertical; that same cell will not respond to bars
in any other orientation. Cells in layer 4B are also unselective for color, but
they are selective for orientation and movement; a cell in this system, for
example, will respond either to horizontal bars that move upward or to vertical
bars that move horizontally but not to both". Signals from these three
subdivisions of visual area 1 are transmitted to a nearby region of the brain
called visual area 2. The same staining technique revealed the fact that visual
area 2 also contains at least three significant subdivisions, called "pale
stripes", "thick stripes", and "thin stripes." Dr. Livingstone (1988, p.71)
said that: "The color-selective blobs of visual area 1 provide input to the
thin stripes of visual area 2, which continue the processing of color 
information. The orientation selective interblobs provide input to the pale
stripes, which process the information in a way that suggests they are involved
in shape analysis. The magno system provides input to the thick stripes, which
analyze information about stereoscopic depth." Information from the thick
stripes of visual area 2 is then transmitted to another part of the brain
called the middle temporal (MT). Many of the neurons in this part of the brain
are sensitive to movement. It is also believed that the middle temporal is
responsible for stereopsis. Stereopsis is a function of the brain which
estimates how far away an object is based on the slightly different images of
this object in the two eyes. Signals from the thin stripes of visual area 2 are
transmitted to a part of the brain concerned with color vision called visual
area 4 (V4). Various aspects of visual processing, such as the perception of
shape, movement and color, seem to be performed step by step along independent
pathways in the brain. For example, the "parvo-interblob-pale-stripe system"
represents a sequence of information processing stages going from the retina to
the parvo neurons of the lateral geniculate bodies and then to the "interblob"
neurons of visual area 1 and then to the "pale-stripe" neurons of visual area
2. According to Dr. Livingstone, it seems that this sequential processing
system enables one to see the shape of stationary objects in great detail. But
it does not provide information about the color of these objects. Another step
by step processing sequence is the "blob-thin-stripe-V4" system which goes from
the retina to the lateral geniculate bodies and then to the "blob" neurons of
visual area 1 and then to the "thin stripe" neurons of visual area 2 and then
to the neurons of visual area 4. Dr. Livingstone said (1988, p.72): "The blob-
thin-stripe-V4 system processes information about color and shades of gray
but not about movement, shape discrimination or depth. This system has 
a severalfold lower acuity than the interblob system and therefore sees objects
in color but not in great detail." The "magno-4B-thick-stripe-MT" system
provides information about movement and how far away an object is based on
stereoscopic analysis. But it provides no information about the color of an
object. The idea that different aspects of visual processing are performed by
different parts of the brain seems to be confirmed by the various kinds of
partial blindness exhibited by persons who are suffering from damage to
specific parts of their brain. For example, in one case, a person is unable to
recognize faces although he is still able to perceive shapes. In another case,
a person is unable to see color, but he is still able to see shapes. Nobel
prize winning neurophysiologist John Eccles (Popper and Eccles, 1977, p.263)
reported that there is no exact replica of the visual field displayed on 
a "screen" in the brain, although there is a region of neurons in the visual
cortex (the rearmost part of the human brain) that contains a distorted
representation of the visual field.

2.1.1.4 Certain neurons respond only to specific shapes in the visual field

Dr. Eccles (1977, p.266) also reported that some neurons respond only to
specific stimuli in the visual field: "There are neurons that are specially
sensitive to the length and thickness of bright or dark lines as well as to
their orientation and even to two lines meeting at an angle." He also said that
in the part of the brain called the "inferotemporal cortex" of monkeys there
are special neurons that respond only to specific shapes in the visual field
(1977, p.268): "Neurons may be fired by rectangles in the visual field and not
by discs, or by stars and not by circles. Evidently some of the neurons have 
a remarkable feature recognition propensity. It is suggested that the feature
responsivity of some neurons may be so specific that it is not discoverable in
the limited testing time available in an experiment." He mentioned that the
inferotemporal cortex of monkeys corresponds to the "lower part of the right
temporal lobe" in human beings, since it is in this part of the human brain
that neurons respond to specific shapes, both simple geometric shapes and more
irregular ones. Dr. Eccles believes that the neurons which respond to specific
shapes in the visual field are able to do so because they receive input pulses
from the appropriate neurons that respond to simpler forms, such as lines at
particular orientations, that can be fitted together to compose the specific
shape. For example, a neuron that responds to a triangle in the visual field
does so because it receives input pulses from neurons that respond to lines at
the appropriate angles for composing the triangle. If this idea is correct,
then it suggests the following scenario for the recognition of simple geometric
forms: A geometric form (a triangle, for example) is displayed before the eyes
of a conscious individual. The appropriate photoreceptor cells of the retina
are stimulated and consequently generate electrical pulses as output. This
output is sent to certain regions of the brain including the "parvo" cells. 
The output from the parvo cells is sent to the "interblob" cells. As mentioned
earlier, Dr. Livingstone reported that an interblob cell that responds to 
a line at a particular orientation does not respond to lines at any other
orientations. The output from the photoreceptor cells thus results in the
firing of three particular neurons, each of which is exclusively responsive to
one of the lines that make up the triangle present in the visual field. The
output pulses from each of these three neurons are transmitted to one neuron
that responds to this triangle.

2.1.1.5 How signals are generated within neurons and transmitted to other
neurons

In order for this system to function properly, output signals from certain
neurons must be transmitted to certain other neurons. In the brain this is
accomplished by interconnections between the neurons called "axons" and
"dendrites." The main body of a neuron is called the soma. It contains the
nucleus and other organelles that are essential for cellular functioning.
Output from the neuron is transmitted along the axon, which typically branches
into a number of nerve fibers. A signal can be sent along each of the fibers,
thus allowing the output of one neuron to be transmitted to many other neurons.
At the end of each such fiber is a special organelle called the synaptic knob.
The output of a neuron is in the form of an electric pulse that travels along 
a nerve fiber. The pulse propagates by the following mechanism. Inside a nerve
fiber there is a mixture of three kinds of ions: sodium and potassium ions
(which are positively charged), and chloride ions (which are negatively 
charged). These three kinds of ions are also present outside the fiber, but in
different proportions. In the resting state of the nerve fiber, there is 
a greater number of chloride ions than the combined number of sodium and
potassium ions inside the nerve fiber. Outside, the reverse is true. This means
that in the resting state, the inside has a net negative charge and the outside
has a net positive charge. The wall of the nerve fiber is constructed in such 
a way as to allow these ions to migrate through it. The ions tend to migrate
through the wall so as to neutralize the electric potential resulting from the
ion concentrations described above. But the nerve fiber acts in such a way as
to maintain this electric potential by a special "metabolic pump" that pumps
sodium ions back out of the fiber. The fiber also maintains more potassium ions
than sodium ions inside by another special pump that pumps potassium ions in
from the outside. So, there are two pumps operating at the molecular level: one
pumps sodium out and the other pumps potassium in. An electrical pulse (or
signal) is a section of the nerve fiber in which the charge imbalance of the
resting state is reversed (in other words, positive inside and negative
outside). This pulse moves along the nerve fiber. As it moves, its electric
field causes special gates (called "sodium gates") to open in a region just in
front of the pulse. The result of this is that sodium ions from outside the
fiber flow into it through these sodium gates. In this way the electric charge
in the pulse is net positive inside and net negative outside, which is just
the reverse of the resting condition of a nerve fiber section. So, a signal or
pulse is nothing more than a travelling, charge-reversed section of a nerve
fiber. Just behind the pulse, another kind of special gate called "potassium
gates" open to allow the potassium ions to flow out of the nerve fiber. This
process begins to restore the excess of negative charge on the inside of the
fiber. This process is aided by the action of the sodium pumps which pump the
sodium ions out of the fiber. After a while the original resting state of the
nerve fiber (negative inside, positive outside) is restored and the fiber is
ready for another signal. The propagation of this electrical pulse allows 
a signal to be transmitted along the nerve fiber. But there is a gap (called 
the synaptic cleft) between the synaptic knob at the end of each nerve fiber 
and the dendrite or soma of the next neuron to which the signal is supposed to 
be sent. When such an electric pulse (the signal) reaches a synaptic knob, it
causes the knob to emit a special molecule called a neurotransmitter. This
neurotransmitter travels across the synaptic cleft to another neuron.
Neurotransmitters are of two types: The first type, called excitatory, acts in
such a way as to encourage the next neuron to fire. The second type, called
inhibitory, discourages the next neuron to fire. So, at any given moment, 
a nerve cell adds up the effects of all of the excitatory neurotransmitters that
it has received from all the other neurons (that are in contact with it through
synaptic connections). It also adds up the effects of all of the inhibitory
neurotransmitters that it has received and subtracts this total effect from the
total effect of all the excitatory neurotransmitters. If the total excitatory
effect is greater than the total inhibitory effect, then the cell fires (by
which we mean that it sends an electrical pulse along its axon as described
above). But if the total inhibitory effect is greater than the excitatory
effect, then it does not fire. In this way neurons can control the transmission
of pulses by other neurons. Output is sent out along the axons, and input is
received from other neurons on the dendrites (or sometimes it is received
directly on the soma itself). Thus we see how the various neurons of the visual
pathways described earlier can transmit information from one to another. In
this way the parvo neurons can send appropriate signals to the interblob
neurons which respond to lines in the visual field at specific orientations,
and these interblob cells can send signals to a special neuron that responds to
a triangle in the visual field. Hence, we can understand how such a system can
respond to various geometric forms in the visual field.

2.1.1.6 Sophisticated pattern recognition in the brain

As impressive as this may sound, Dr. Eccles reported a far more impressive
level of pattern recognition in the brain. He mentioned (1977, p.268) that one
neuron in the inferotemporal cortex of a monkey "appeared to be fired
specifically by the silhouette of a monkey hand" in the visual field! This
amazing revelation, along with the other facts discussed earlier, suggests that
much of the pattern recognition in human beings and animals can be explained in
terms of the operation of sophisticated neural networks of the kind that we
have been considering thus far. Suppose that a man named Mr. Jones is in 
a crowded shopping center and he is looking for his grandmother. He is expecting
her at any moment and consequently he is looking carefully at the face of each
person who walks by. Let us suppose that there is a special "face-recognition"
neural network in the human brain that causes one particular neuron (called the
"grandmother cell") to fire only when his grandmother appears in his visual
field. After anxiously waiting for some time, suddenly his grandmother appears
within his visual field. The light reflected from her face enters his eyes and
is focused on the retina where photoreceptor cells are activated and
consequently emit a pattern of electric signals. These electric signals are
transmitted through, and processed by, various networks of neurons in various
regions of the brain until they reach the face-recognition network. The
face-recognition network is able to ascertain that the face appearing in his
visual field happens to be the same as his grandmother's and consequently this
network causes the grandmother cell to fire. Although we have not described the
operation of the other senses, such as the ears, olfactory and tactile senses
in detail, we can easily imagine that they work in a way completely analogous
to vision. Special transducer organs in the ears generate a systematic pattern
of electrical pulses that encodes certain features of sounds picked up by the
ears. This systematic pattern of pulses is transmitted to the parts of the
brain that deal with sound, where special neural networks process it and
display certain features of it. We can easily imagine that there is 
a "voice-recognition" neural network that works in a way completely analagous 
to the "face-recognition" network. The senses of smell and touch could work in 
a similar way. 
We have used the word "recognition" in describing the responses of certain 
neural networks and individual neurons. We said, for example, that an interblob
cell "recognizes" a certain bar in the visual field, and we said that a pattern
"recognition" network allows the brain (or a computer) to "recognize" objects 
in the visual field. Actually, however, a neuron, or a network of them, or 
a human brain, or any other kind of machine (whether biological or man-made)
is not able to recognize anything! Recognition is a non-physical state of
consciousness in the conscious self -- only a conscious self is able to 
recognize something. Machines such as neurons (or networks of them) can exhibit
a specific output pulse if a specific object is displayed in the visual field.
Thus, a neuron can respond to a specific input by generating a specific output.
This is response, not recognition.

2.1.1.7 The nature of the PNP linkage

Now we are in a position to address the main question that inspired this
discussion in the first place, namely: What is the nature of the PNP linkage?
Research in the mechanics of vision has revealed that various regions of the
brain and retina are involved in vision. The evaluation of distance, shape,
color, and motion is performed by elaborate pathways involving many (perhaps
hundreds of millions of) neurons that are arranged in sophisticated networks.
Moreover, human activities generally also involve the other senses as well.
Thus, a typical human activity such as walking down the street could involve 
a large number of neurons (perhaps billions) located in various regions of the
brain. Furthermore, the electrochemical pattern established by the action of
the neurons generally changes rapidly from moment to moment in response to
changing environmental stimuli. For the conscious self to have the kind of
conscious experiences that we know he has, his conscious experience must be
correlated with the electrochemical events occuring within certain neurons
located in various regions of his brain. Each electrochemical pattern in the
brain is actually a code for a specific conscious experience in the self. 
A change in this electrochemical pattern results in a change in the contents of
consciousness. But the contents of consciousness are purely non-physical,
whereas electrochemical events within the brain are purely physical. How is 
a change in these physical events correlated with a change in something
completely non-physical (the contents of consciousness)? Regardless of how
sophisticated they are, the activities of all neural networks involve nothing
more than electrochemical events. And the ultimate fruit of such activities is
displayed information in the form of electrical pulses. For example, the
ultimate fruit of the operation of the "face-recognition" network is the firing
of the "grandmother cell". This is a purely physical event which is 
qualitatively completely different from the conscious experience Mr. Jones has
when he finally sees his grandmother. Hence the agent that is creating Mr.
Jones' conscious experience must be different from the neural machinery in Mr.
Jones' brain (the term "machinery" means a system of interacting material
elements). Yet at the same time, this agent must be able to read the
electrochemical states in the brain, since we know that these states are
definitely correlated with conscious experiences in the self. Thus, although
the pulses generated by the grandmother cell do not directly create the
conscious experience of seeing grandmother, these pulses are correlated with
this experience. Hence, the agent must be able to read the electrochemical
states of the brain, recognize the meaning of the electrochemical events in
certain neurons, and create the appropriate conscious experience within the
conscious self. What are the characteristics of this agent? As shown above,
this agent can not be neural machinery in the brain -- he must be a conscious
person. But he must be different from the individual conscious selves (who
identify themselves with their material bodies) since none of them can either
see the electrochemical events in their brains or understand what such events
mean. Consider the hypothetical situation in which you are able to observe, at
the molecular level, the billions of rapidly changing electrochemical events
taking place now within your brain. Would you be able to discern, based solely
on this observation, what these events mean? If you were looking at someone
else's brain, would you be able to tell what conscious experience he is having?
Clearly the answer to these two questions must be: No. Moreover, in reality no
human being is able to see the molecular events taking place in his own brain.
If, after many decades of incredibly tedious research, you had identified the
function of every single neuron in a person's brain, then you would know that
the firing of a particular neuron is related to a particular conscious 
experience. But you would still be unable to create this conscious experience
within the conscious self who identifies with that brain. Moreover, tests on
fully conscious persons have revealed that it generally takes less than 
a second for a change in the physical condition of one's body to result in the
appropriate change in the contents of one's consciousness. Thus the agent that
is actually creating the appropriate conscious experience in the individual
self in accordance with changes in the electrochemical pattern in that self's
brain must be able to do this entire operation in less than a second. On the
other hand, a human being who knows the precise function of each neuron in 
a person's brain would have to tediously monitor the condition (firing or
resting) of each neuron in that brain before he could figure out what conscious
experience that person is having. Using modern technology, to monitor the
condition of billions of neurons might take many years. It would certainly take
longer than a second. But there are many circumstances in which the states of
the neurons in a person's brain change in periods of time that are less than 
a second. Hence, one must be able to scan the entire brain in less than a second
if one wants to understand what state of consciousness the owner of that brain
is experiencing. It is conceivable that one could invent a machine that would
be able to rapidly monitor the state of all the neurons in a human brain and
display the information in a convenient way. Or, better still, after this
monitoring operation, this machine could include a computer that "recognizes"
the significance of the state (fired or not) of each neuron -- the computer
would thus be able to "recognize", given the condition of all the neurons in
the brain, precisely which conscious experience a self should have who
identifies himself with that brain. The input to this computer would be the
state of all the neurons and the ouput would be a statement of the exact
conscious experience. It is conceivable that this machine could be so expertly
designed that if a person were eating an orange (which results in the firing of
specific neurons in his brain and the resting of many other neurons) it would
be able to "recognize" that the person should be having this particular taste
experience based solely on monitoring all the neurons in his brain (although I
am using the word "recognize", I must emphasize that, as explained before, 
a machine is not able to recognize anything -- when I say that a machine
recognizes something, I mean that it provides an appropriate response to 
a specific input. Similarly, the machine does not experience anything, although
it is able to specify which experience a conscious self would be having). This
machine would be able to distinguish this experience from all other taste
experiences. It would similarly be able to distinguish the visual experience
of seeing a sunset from all other visual experiences. But, even assuming that
such a machine could be built, it is clear that this machine would still be
unable to create the actual conscious experience in the self. In light of the
above discussion, let us now summarize some of the characteristics of the agent
who is actually creating the appropriate conscious experiences within us based
on the electrochemical events in our brains:

(A) He must be able to see, at the molecular level, the electrochemical events
in the brain.

(B) He must be able to quickly scan the entire brain and record the
electrochemical state of each neuron therein.

(C) He must be able to quickly recognize the meaning of the electrochemical
condition of each neuron. 

(D) He must be able to quickly create the appropriate conscious experience
within the conscious self who identifies with that brain.

To do this, he must be able to tie together a large number of separate pieces
of information into a unified state of consciousness. Just in the process of
vision alone, he would have to be able to tie together a large number of
isolated pieces of information (the outputs of certain neurons involved in the
various aspects of visual processing) into a coherent visual experience in the
conscious self. For example, if you are looking at a sunset which features 
a large variety of different colors at different points in the visual field, the
color comparison neural network (which I explained earlier in section 2.1.1.2)
responsible for each point would generate a specific pattern of electrical
pulses that is a code for the particular color present at that point. Since
there are many points in the visual field containing different colors, there
would thus be many different patterns of pulses encoding them. The agent would
have to be able to construct the conscious experience of seeing all the
different colors at all the different points in the visual field based on
reading and understanding the patterns of electrical pulses present in the
various color comparison neural networks. If there were an airplane flying by
at the time, then the agent would have to read the neural networks in the brain
which are responsible for the processing of shape, motion and distance in order
to construct the appropriate conscious experience in the self (recall from
section 2.1.1.3 that color, shape, motion and distance evaluation are 
performed by separate networks of neurons). The agent must be able to recognize
the significance of the firing of many different neurons. This is complicated
by the fact that the frequency with which a neuron generates pulses can also be
a code for certain kinds of information -- Dr. Livingstone (1988, p.68)
reported that signals from one kind of cone cell cause certain neurons to
increase the rate at which they produce pulses whereas signals from another
kind of cone cell cause these neurons to decrease the rate of pulse production.
This is one of the stages of color information processing. When we add in the
processing of information from the other senses we can begin to get a dim
understanding of the enormity of the task performed by this agent at every
moment within each physically-embodied self. Considering the above points, it
is clear that this agent must be far superior to human beings in sensory
capacity, intelligence, and in ways that are practically inconceivable to us
(the act of creating a conscious experience within the individual self seems to
fit this description). Hence, we must reject the hypothesis that this agent is
the individual conscious self. Let us call this agent the "superself".
Sometimes the phrase "the subconscious mind" is used to refer to mental
activities that are performed outside of the awareness of the conscious self.
The operations that we have attributed to the superself could be attributed to
the "subconscious mind" if by "subconscious mind" we mean a conscious person
who is performing superhuman operations that are outside of our awareness. The
term subconscious mind is often used in such a way that it seems to mean some
impersonal brain mechanism. We showed above why even the most sophisticated
impersonal brain mechanisms (neural networks) cannot create conscious
experiences in the individual conscious self. It is clear that the agent that
creates these experiences must be a person. Thus, to call this agent the
"subconscious mind" can be inappropriate and misleading. There are billions of
people on earth. To account for their conscious experiences, it would seem that
within the physical body of each one of them there must be two conscious
persons:

A. The individual self who identifies with that particular human body. Each
self is a separate, individual person.

B. The superself, a person who is different from any of the individual selves.

The superself is simultaneously conscious of the states of consciousness within
all the individual selves and the electrochemical activities in all of their
physical bodies. Although the superself is able to simultaneously observe the
activities in many different locations, he is not divided. He is one person who
is equipped with senses that allow him to see events in many different places
at once. In the last chapter I will discuss a practical technique that can help
one to directly verify the existence of the superself (and the individual
selves). One might object that the hypothesis presented above is unnecessarily
complicated since it posits two different conscious beings in each human body.
But it seems that this is in fact the simplest system that can actually account
for our conscious experience. The individual conscious self is required as the
experiencer of events in his physical body, and the superself is required to
create the appropriate conscious experience within the individual self in
accordance with the electrochemical phenomenon in that individual self's
physical brain.

2.2 Willed action: The flow of information from the conscious self to his
physical body

Along with the process of sense perception, the individual conscious self
naturally desires to perform specific actions using his physical body. Yet the
individual self and his desires are completely non-physical. How, then, do they
cause the physical body to perform various activities? In the process of sense
perception we were confronted with the problem of how something physical
(environmental stimuli) influences something that is non-physical (the conscious
self). Now we are concerned with the problem of how something non-physical 
(the individual conscious self) influences something physical (his body). To 
explain this, it seems that we must again introduce the superself.
Let us consider the hypothesis that the superself is always conscious of the
desires of all of the individual selves and he causes the appropriate neural
networks in their brains to generate systematic patterns of electrical pulses
that cause the muscles to move their bodies in accordance with their desires.
Let us now discuss this process in greater detail, as well as some standard
objections that are often raised against it.

2.2.1 Deterministic chaos: natural amplification processes in physical systems
allow the superself to interact with matter without violating the laws of
physics

A common objection to this hypothesis is that the superself's operation of
causing neurons in the brain to fire would violate the laws of physics. Earlier
we described the firing of a neuron. We discovered that it involves the motion
of ions such as sodium, potassium and chloride ions, the action of molecular
pumps mounted in neural cell walls, and the releasing of special molecules that
act as neurotransmitters. Thus, to cause a neuron to fire, the superself would
have to cause these various molecules to move in specific ways. Using the laws
of physics, it would be practically impossible to calculate how each of the
quadrillions of molecules in the brain should be moving. Moreover, even if one
could calculate this, it would be impossible to monitor the motion of each of
these molecules to make sure that they are not violating the laws of physics.
Therefore, practically speaking, it is not possible to verify that a system as
complicated as the brain is operating strictly in accordance with the known
laws of physics. Thus we cannot exclude the possibility that the superself is
causing neurons in the brain to fire. Furthermore, there is evidence that
physical systems can be influenced in such a subtle way that there are no
measurable deviations from the known laws of physics. The branch of physics
known as "deterministic chaos" indicates that natural amplification processes
present in many physical systems can cause an initially insignificant
perturbation to rapidly grow into a macroscopic effect. Consider the example of
a butterfly flapping its wings. This flapping produces small swirls of air that
might seem to a casual observer to be utterly insignificant. But according to
Dr. Edward Lorenz (1963) of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, due to
the fact that the flow of air in the atmosphere exhibits the property of
"exponential instability", even the seemingly insignificant perturbations in
air flow represented by the flapping of the wings of a butterfly can later be
amplified to such a degree that they are able to radically change the
direction in which a hurricane is travelling! In order to illustrate what is
meant by "exponential instability", mathematician Richard Thompson (1991) gives
the following example. Imagine that you are firing a bullet at a solid metal
sphere that is a few centimeters in diameter. It is an elastic collision so
that the bullets always bounce off, and you are standing a few meters away from
the sphere. If you shoot directly at the center of the sphere, the bullet will
bounce directly back at you. But if you shoot a little bit off center, the
bullet bounces off to the side. Due to the curvature of the sphere, slight
changes in your aim will result in large changes in the direction in which the
bullet bounces. Thus the curvature of the sphere amplifies the small change in
your aim. Let us imagine, furthermore, that there are a number of these spheres
and the bullet bounces from one sphere to the next. Now, at each bounce, the
change in the bullet's trajectory is huge. In other words, a small change in
your aim as you fire at the first sphere will be greatly amplified by each
successive bounce of the bullet off the spheres. This phenomenon is called
"exponential amplification." The molecules of air in the atmosphere can be
modeled as spheres. As they bounce off of each other, the phenomenon of
exponential amplification takes place. This is the reason that an initially
insignificant perturbation, such as the air swirls produced by the flapping of
the wings of a butterfly, can later be amplified into a significant disturbance.
It is important to note that exponential amplification is not limited to gases.
It has been observed (Cvitanovic, 1984) in various systems, such as: the flow 
of fluids in various situations; oscillating chemical reactions; the beating of
heart cells; various electrical and mechanical oscillators; models of nerve 
cells and glial cells in the brain; and models of epidemics, animal populations 
and economics. In fact, it seems that most physical systems exhibit exponential 
amplification. What is the significance of the phenomenon of exponential 
amplification? The significance is that if someone were able to make precisely
coordinated small perturbations in the positions and velocities of the many 
particles in a real physical system, then because these initially small 
perturbations later grow by exponential amplification into a macroscopic effect,
he would be able to bring about certain macroscopic effects without a measurable
deviation from the known laws of physics, either classical mechanics or quantum 
mechanics. The initial perturbations can be so small that they are utterly 
undetectable, and due to the process of exponential amplification, they can 
later bring about a large scale effect. In order to be able to bring about 
desired macroscopic effects by this process, one must be able to monitor and 
make minute coordinated adjustments in the positions and velocities of enormous
numbers of particles.
Each one of the quadrillions of particles in a real physical system must be
deflected in precisely the proper way to later bring about the desired result.
One must be able to calculate precisely how much of a deflection and in which
direction this deflection is to be applied for each of these quadrillions of
particles in a real physical system. This is not a trivial task since it
involves solving simultaneously the equations of motion for each of the
particles. Since the particles are typically moving at extremely high speeds,
these equations must be solved extremely quickly so that the proper deflections
can be applied. Even the best modern computers are utterly incapable of carring
out this task, not to mention a human mind. Thus, although this process does
not create a measurable violation of either the classical or quantum mechanical
laws of physics, in order to be able to practically bring about a desired
macroscopic result by such manipulations one would have to be able to
simultaneously see a huge number of sub-microscopic situations and rapidly make
just the right adjustments in the motion of quadrillions of particles. Clearly,
the superself is the only person who is capable of doing this. So, it seems
that the laws of physics are compatible with the concept that the superself
directly controls events in the physical world, on both the microscopic and
macroscopic levels. Let us suppose, then, that the superself makes precise,
coordinated changes in the motions of the molecules within certain neurons so
as to cause these neurons to fire. The next question is: Which neurons should
be induced to fire so as to move the desired muscles of the body? Suppose that
a physically-embodied individual conscious self desires to pick up a glass of
water. The proper execution of this task requires that specific muscles flex at
specific times; in other words, teams of muscles must work together in 
a coordinated way. To make this happen, only certain specific neurons in the
brain must be stimulated in such a way that they produce just the right pattern
of electrical impulses. Clearly the individual self has absolutely no idea
which neurons in his brain must be stimulated to cause the right muscles to
move. In section 2.1.1 we studied some of the neural networks involved in the
process of vision. This study revealed the great complexity of these networks.
Thus it is reasonable to suppose that there must be elaborate neural networks
involved in the coordinated movement of teams of muscles. Let us therefore
hypothesize that the superself knows which neurons must be stimulated in order
to move certain muscles. Let us then consider the following scenario: The
individual self desires to pick up a glass of water. As soon as he desires
this, the superself becomes aware of this desire and rapidly identifies which
neurons in his brain must be induced to fire in order to move the appropriate
muscles needed to fulfill this desire. The superself then applies unmeasurably
small deflections to a large number of molecules in each of these crucial
neurons. These small deflections cause the molecules to move in such a way 
that each of these neurons fires electrical pulses. The pattern of pulses
generated by these neurons is precisely the right pattern needed to move the
muscles of the hand and arm in the smoothly coordinated fashion typical of
adult human beings. Thus the glass is lifted without the individual self
recognizing the incredible complexity of the events involved. He simply desires
to pick up the glass and his arm and hand seem to move automatically. Most of
us do not even think about how our desires become translated into physical
motion. Most of us do not recognize that our desires are completely
non-physical and therefore qualitatively different from the electrical pulses
produced by the neural machinery in our brains. Modern neurophysiology has 
revealed that nothing can happen in the brain and body without the activation 
of suitable neural networks. According to medical science, there is no 
possibility that the muscles of the body can move in a coordinated way without 
the production of just the right pattern of electrical pulses moving through the
right neurons to the right muscles. Although this is universally accepted, most
of us do not question how the required pattern of pulses is actually produced.
Except for certain reflex actions which may be completely explainable in terms
of the activities of certain neural networks (such as, for example, removing
one's hand from a hot stove), all decisions whether or not to perform a certain
action in the physical world originate within the conscious self. Of course the
conscious self's decisions are generally influenced by past or present
environmental stimuli, but the decision itself ultimately comes from the
individual self. Thus we are confronted with the problem of explaining how the
non-physical conscious self causes his physical body to move. To explain this,
it seems that we are forced to invoke the above hypothesis involving the
superself.


3. Empirical evidence that the conscious self can function independently of his
physical body

Thus far I have presented arguments in favor of the idea that the conscious
self is fundamentally different from his physical body and can function
independently of it. If this is actually true, then one would think that there
should be empirical evidence to support it. It would be strange indeed if there
were no empirical evidence for it at all. It turns out that there is abundant
evidence from many different people living at different times and in various
countries. In recent times, such evidence has been carefully documented by
scientists who hold respectable positions at major universities.

3.1 Autoscopic experiences during cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Dr. Michael Sabom was a cardiologist at the medical school of the Emory
University in Atlanta, Georgia, USA during the time that he studied autoscopic
phenomena. In autoscopic experiences people report that they come out of their
physical bodies and observe the body from outside of it. In the beginning of
his study Dr. Sabom thought that these so-called autoscopic experiences are
nothing more than imagination, but after interviewing more than a hundred
people over a period of five years he concluded that there is something more
than imagination at work in these reports. Why did he change his mind? One
reason comes from the reports of people who suffered cardiac arrest 
(a situation in which the heart stops pumping). When the heart stops, the 
brain no longer receives fresh blood, which means that it no longer receives 
oxygen. Thus, if a human being is nothing more than the biological machinery 
of his physical body, then during the time that his heart is not pumping, he 
should not be aware of events occuring in the vicinity of his physical body 
(I shall also discuss the possibility that a person may retain some dim level 
of awareness during the time his heart is not pumping). There is a general
procedure called "cardiopulmonary resuscitation" which is used by medical
personnel to revive cardiac arrest victims, but the details of this procedure
vary from one victim to the next depending on the particular requirements at
the time. Thus even if a person were already familiar with the general
procedure of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), it would be very unlikely
that he would be able to provide specific details for his own CPR ("his own
CPR" means that his heart stopped and medical personnel were attempting to
start it) unless he had actually witnessed it. For example, it is true that an
electric shock (called defibrillation) is applied to the chest, but the number
of such shocks required to revive the patient may vary from patient to patient.
Some of the patients interviewed by Dr. Sabom were able to give specific
details of their own CPR that agreed with the medical records written by the
doctors who actually performed the CPR. For example, one man said that during
his cardiac arrest he came out of his physical body and observed his own CPR
from a point outside his physical body. He said (Sabom, 1982, p.90) that the
doctor twice applied electric shocks to his chest and this agrees with the
medical record for his CPR. The medical record was not made available to the
man. In another case a man also claimed that he came out of his physical body
and watched it from outside during his CPR. After he reentered his body he told
his doctor that he had observed his CPR and knew everything that the doctor did
when he tried to revive him. But his doctor said that this was not possible
because he was legally dead at that time! The man told his doctor (Sabom, 1982,
p.106): "Dr. B, I couldn't have died. I knew everything that went on." He told
his doctor that at one point he intended to give an injection under the right
arm but then changed his mind and decided to give the injection under the left
arm. The doctor was totally amazed to hear this. The man asked the doctor, "Am
I right?" And the doctor said: "Yes, you are right!" The doctor simply could
not understand how the man obtained the correct information at a time when he
should have been unable to see things around him. Later Dr. Sabom interviewed
this doctor and he admitted that on other occasions, other patients had also
claimed to have had an out-of-body experience. At this point someone might
object that the man had actually remained in his body and had, despite the
cardiac arrest, observed (or felt) what was going on from within his body using
his ordinary physical senses. But this contradicts the man's testimony. The man
clearly said that he had observed his physical body from a point outside of it.
Not only he, but dozens of people reported the same experience. The interesting
question now is whether all these people were lying. It does not seem so
because there appears to have been no motive for lying. The usual motives
involve such things as fame and money, but Dr. Sabom's report does not indicate
that anyone gained substantial fame or money. Dr. Sabom said that he approached
each patient privately as if he were conducting a routine medical investigation
involving standard questions for patients recovering from cardiac arrest. Thus
the patients did not know in advance that Dr. Sabom intended to ask them about
anything unusual they might have experienced during CPR. There was no
atmosphere of sensationalism or trying to advertise publicly some new mystical
experience with the aim of attracting attention. In fact, at the time Dr. Sabom
interviewed many of the patients (late 1970's) most people in that region
(rural Florida and surrounding areas) had not yet heard of out-of-body
experiences because the books and other media on this subject had not yet come
out. Most of the people Dr. Sabom interviewed were just ordinary people such
as mechanics and security guards who were not overly educated or overly
sophisticated. Dr. Sabom approached each patient as if conducting an ordinary
medical interview and after a series of routine questions about their physical
recovery he asked them if they had experienced anything unusual during their
CPR. At this point many patients simply said that they were unconscious during
the CPR and could not remember anything. But some patients looked cautiously at
Dr. Sabom to make sure that he was not an undercover psychiatrist and then said
something like: "I did have a very unusual experience but if I told you about
it you would think I am crazy." The people hesitated to reveal their experience
because they were afraid that Dr. Sabom would consider them insane. Dr. Sabom
would then say that he was genuinely interested in any experience they had
during CPR as a matter of scientific interest. After reassuring themselves that
Dr. Sabom would not lock them up in an insane asylum, the people would then
reveal how they had come out of their physical bodies and observed the body
from a viewpoint outside it. Although the people had no contact with each
other, each person related an experience that was remarkably similar to that of
the other people. According to Dr. Sabom's report, the people were not trying
to advertise their experience - quite the contrary, they were trying to hide
it! Thus the usual motives for lying do not seem to be at work in these cases.
Further supporting evidence comes from Dr. Sabom's observation that there is 
a great difference in the quality of the experience between those who report
coming out of their bodies and those who do not. Dr. Sabom noted that during
surgery it has been observed that patients are occasionally in a semi-conscious
state (usually they are totally unconscious), but their reports lack visual
awareness and tend to be nightmarish in quality, in contrast to the highly
visual and pleasant quality of the experience reported by those who claim to
have observed their own CPR from outside their bodies. It is also important to
note that Dr. Sabom interviewed many people who had a cardiac arrest but who
did not claim to have come out of their bodies during CPR. Dr. Sabom (1982,
p.86) asked them to describe the general procedure of in-hospital CPR and fully
80% of them made a major error. Furthermore, not even one of them was able to
give correct details for his own CPR. In contrast, none of the persons
reporting an out-of-body experience during CPR made such mistakes in describing
the general procedure of CPR and some of them were able to give specific
details of their own CPR that agreed with the medical records (or other sources
of verification) for their particular CPR. This is interesting since both those
who reported an out-of-body experience and those who did not had similar prior
general knowledge of CPR. If the out-of-body experiences are nothing more than
fantasy and delusion, then how are some people able to report specific details
that agree with the medical record for their particular CPR? And why is there
such a big difference between those who reported leaving their bodies and those
who did not? Another important fact is that Dr. Sabom (1982, p.115) reported
that some patients gave correct details of events that were outside of the
field of vision of the eyes of their physical body. Thus even if they had
somehow been conscious and able to use the eyes of their physical body during
the time their heart was not pumping, they still would have been unable to see
what they reported, if seeing is done only by the physical eyes. An example of
this is a man who had a cardiac arrest and was being transported through 
a hospital corridor. He reported that he was outside of his physical body and
observing his physical body from a point above it. Using his non-physical
vision he saw his wife and two of his six children standing approximately forty
meters away down a hall, talking to a doctor. He never came close to his wife
and children. While he was observing this his physical face was not pointing in
the direction of his wife and children, so even if he could have used his
physical eyes he would not have been able to realize that his wife and children
were there. His wife confirmed that his physical face was pointing away from
her at that time. His wife and children were not expected to be in the hospital
that night but came spontaneously on a surprise visit. Furthermore, the man has
six fully matured sons and daughters, but only two of them were in the hospital
that night, yet the man was able to correctly identify these two. Dr. Sabom
considered various hypotheses to account for the accuracy of the autoscopic
reports:

1. Accurate portrayal of specific details of the CPR based exclusively on prior
general knowledge. This hypothesis is cast greatly in doubt by the fact, as
mentioned above, that 80% of the patients who did not report an out-of-body
experience during their CPR made at least one major error in describing the
in-hospital procedure of CPR; but none of the patients who reported leaving
their bodies during the CPR made such errors. The prior general knowledge of
CPR was the same for those who reported an out-of-body experience and those
who did not. Dr. Sabom (1982, p.114) said: "The proposal that the autoscopic
NDE is based on one's prior general knowledge of CPR technique is cast further
in doubt when the type of CPR details reported from the NDE is evaluated. These
autoscopic details appear to be fairly specific for the actual resuscitation
being described and are not interchangeable with the clinical circumstances of
other near-death crisis events. For example, the man in Case 3 said his CPR
consisted soley of cardiac defibrillation -- a description that fit with the
actual events as reconstructed from his medical record. The man in Case 5
described the performance of several additional procedures, including a "shot
in the groin", a description consistent with his medical situation, but
inappropriate for the condition of the patient in Case 3. Nor would the
autoscopic description in case 3 have fit with the medical situation in Case 5.
This suggests that the autoscopic description of CPR technique is relatively
specific for the resuscitation being described. If this autoscopic description
had been based on `prior general knowledge' of CPR technique, this specificity
of details for the resuscitation in question would not have been found."

2. The accuracy of the autoscopic reports was due to information later supplied
to the patient by nurses or doctors who were present during the CPR. Dr. Sabom
considered this to be an unlikely explanation because the specific details
(such as the movement of the needles on the face of the defibrillator, the
number of difibrillations, the drawing of arterial blood from the groin or
hand, etc.) accurately reported by those claiming to have watched their CPR from
outside of their physical body is not the type of information that the doctors
usually tell to a recovering patient. The type of information that is typically
supplied to a recovering patient is that his heart stopped beating and an
electric shock was applied to start the heart again. In other words, only
general information is typically supplied, and not specific details.

3. The accuracy of the autoscopic reports was due to the fact that the patient,
despite the cardiac arrest, was not completely unconscious and thus was able to
obtain the information in the normal way by using the senses of his physical
body. But Dr. Sabom said (1982, p.115): "Much like the surgical patient who can
sometimes hear conversations between physicians and nurses in the operating
room while under general anesthesia, the unconscious near-death patient may
also hear verbal remarks made during his resuscitation. If these are later
recalled by the near-death survivor, then perhaps his autoscopic NDE could be
explained as the piecing together of verbal information into an accurate visual
image of what actually transpired. In the foregoing six cases, however, several
of the autoscopically perceived events were of a nonauditory nature -- for
example, the pattern of movement of needles on the face of the defibrillator.
Moreover, the interpretations of some of the autoscopic details indicate that
the perception of the detail was visual, not auditory. For example, the man in
Case 5 described `a shot in the groin'. The procedure he is describing is not
an injection, but the drawing of blood from the femoral artery for a blood gas
determination. If his autoscopic description of this procedure had been based
on remarks made by others present, then he would not have misinterpreted the
intent of the procedure. However, such a misinterpretation could easily be
understood if the man had watched it from a distance, as he claims; for the
`shot in the groin' would then have been a logical conclusion based on the
visual observation of the insertion of a small needle and syringe into the area
of the groin." "But could the autoscopic perceptions have resulted from
intermittent visual glances of the resuscitation through the physical eyes of 
a semiconscious individual? Again, I find this unlikely, since many of the
details described in the autoscopic NDE were of objects and events outside the
visual field of the person being resuscitated. The most striking example here,
of course, was given by the man in Case 6, who identified three of his family
members standing in a hospital corridor at a time when his head was pointing in
the opposite direction." "Thus we have attempted to explain the apparent
accuracy of the autoscopic NDEs by prior general knowledge, by information
passed on by another individual, and by physical perceptions of sight and sound
during semiconsciousness. None of these possibilities have been found to be
plausible explanations."

After eliminating various hypotheses such as those mentioned above, Dr. Sabom
tentatively concluded that the conscious self can function without a physical
body. He said (1982, p.184): "During the autoscopic portion of the NDE,
near-death survivors claimed to have seen and heard events in the vicinity of
their own unconscious physical bodies from a detached elevated position. The
details of these perceptions were found to be accurate in all instances where
corroborating evidence was available. Moreover, there appeared to be no
plausible explanation for the accuracy of these observations involving the
usual physical senses." Dr. Sabom believed that the hypothesis that the
conscious self is able to leave the physical body and function independently of
it explains both the subjective experience of the patients he interviewed and
the accuracy of their autoscopic observations during their resuscitations. Dr.
Sabom's reports indicate that the conscious self is able, under certain
circumstances, to obtain accurate information (both visual and auditory)
without using the senses of the physical body. This implies that the conscious
self has a set of non-physical senses. There are various systems of yoga and
meditation that take advantage of this as a means to obtain information without
using the senses of the physical body. I will discuss this in more detail in
the final chapter.

3.2 Evidence suggesting that the conscious self can move from one physical body
to another.

Dr. Ian Stevenson, professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia, USA,
has published a series of books (Stevenson, 1974a, 1974b, 1975, 1976, 1977,
1980, 1983, 1984) in which he describes his extensive research work over the
last thirty years. His research suggests that the conscious self can function
independently of a physical body and can move from one physical body to
another. Realizing the highly controversial nature of this conclusion, Dr.
Stevenson has taken great pains to carefully document his work. He now has
dozens of cases in which a child gives specific details about a person who he
claims to have been in a previous life and Dr. Stevenson is able to verify many
of these details. These cases are from various countries throughout the world,
in particlular, from America (including Alaska), Brazil, Europe, Turkey,
Lebanon, India, Sri Lanka, and Burma. Let us now examine a few of his cases and
discuss their significance.

3.2.1 The case of Gopal Gupta

Gopal Gupta was born in Delhi, India on 26 August 1956, the son of S.P. Gupta
and his wife Omvati Gupta. Gopal began speaking between the ages of two and two
and a half years old. One day a guest was visiting and Gopal was requested to
remove a used drinking glass from the table. But Gopal startled everyone by
saying: "I won't pick it up. I am a Sharma". He then became very angry and
broke several glasses. Dr. Stevenson (1975, p.70) reported: "Gopal said that he
came from Mathura, where he had another father and two brothers, one of whom
had shot him. He mentioned other details, including that he had quarreled with
his wife and owned a company that had to do with medicines. He gave the
company's name, Sukh Shancharak. He said that he had a large house and
emphasized that he had many servants to carry away dishes and utensils. Gopal
gave out all or almost all of this information on the evening of his first
outbreak of anger over being asked to remove a used glass." According to Dr.
Stevenson, at this time neither Gopal nor either of his parents had ever been
in Mathura. Later, in his interview with Dr. Stevenson, Gopal's father denied
that his family had had any contact with the Sharma family prior to the
development of the case. Similarly, the Sharmas told Dr. Stevenson that there
had been no contact between their family and the Gupta family before the case.
In general, Dr. Stevenson conducts numerous interviews in order to confirm that
the information was not acquired through normal means of communication. In
particular, he seeks to make sure that there had not been any contact between
the two families before the development of the case. In 1964 Gopal's father
drove from Delhi to Mathura (a distance of 160 kilometers). In Mathura he found
that there is in fact a company called Sukh Shancharak that sells medicines and
that it was owned by three Sharma brothers the youngest of whom, named
Brijendrapal, had shot and killed his older brother named Shaktipal Sharma in
1948. Gopal provided other detailed information about the life of Shaktipal
Sharma that Dr. Stevenson later found to be true. The following is a list of
statements made by Gopal about Shaktipal Sharma before there was any reported
contact between the two families and before Gopal had visited Mathura:

1. He was a Sharma.

2. He had servants to remove utensils from the table.

3. He lived in Mathura.

4. He owned a very big house in Mathura.

5. His company was called Sukh Shancharak.

6. His company sold medicines.

7. His company owned a showroom.

8. They had another house outside the town with a garden.

9. He owned many big houses.

10. He had a car (very unusual in India in the 1930's).

11. He went to college in a car.

12. He received the degree M.A.

13. His company gave free medicines to poor people.

14. He liked the piano.

15. His workers were happy because he used to give them wine.

16. He was one of three brothers.

17. His younger brother used to drink a lot.

18. His younger brother married a woman from Assam.

In 1965 Gopal visited Mathura for the first time. Dr. Stevenson (1975, p.80)
reported: "In Mathura, Gopal showed a remarkable ability to recognize people in
photographs, including two of Shaktipal Sharma in which his face could not be
seen. Gopal also impressed the informants by his recognition of places in
Mathura connected with the life and murder of Shaktipal Sharma. I went over
this terrain carefully in 1969 and am satisfied that although Gopal had, or
might have had, some suggestions that could have helped in some of these
recognitions, such suggestions would not account for other recognitions such as
his (Gopal's) correctly finding the house where Shaktipal Sharma lived, a place
then quite unknown to his father and the other men accompanying them."
According to Dr. Stevenson, when Gopal was young he identified strongly with
Shaktipal Sharma. Gopal was not only capable of providing information about
Shaktipal Sharma, but he also exhibited similar behavior. Dr. Stevenson (1975,
p.99) reported: "Gopal on numerous occasions insisted to his family that he
belonged to the caste of Brahmins, a higher one than their caste, Banias. When
young, he refused to touch eating utensils used by anyone except his father. He
said he had had many servants to take away utensils. He would not drink milk
from a cup anyone else had used, even, in this case, his father." Shaktipal
Sharma was a Brahmin. When Subhadra Devi Sharma (the widow of Shaktipal Sharma)
visited Gopal in Delhi he treated her very cooly. This accords well with the
behavior of Shaktipal Sharma who was not very pleased with his wife. Dr.
Stevenson's Table 3 lists a number of similarities in behavior between Gopal
and Shaktipal Sharma. Dr. Stevenson mentioned that Gopal had impressed the
members of the Sharma family with the accuracy of most of his memories and his
ability to recognize certain photographs, especially those of Shaktipal Sharma
in which his face is not visible. Dr. Stevenson (1975, p.102) said: "And
Subhadra Devi Sharma (the widow of Shaktipal Sharma) fainted when told about
Gopal's memories of her husband's efforts to borrow money from her before his
murder. The details of this had certainly never appeared in any newspaper or
been otherwise spread around publicly. Shaktipal Sharma's older sister, Chandra
Kanta Devi Sharma, found herself calling Gopal "Shakti", a strong indication
that she regarded him as her brother reborn. Vishwapal Sharma, Shaktipal
Sharma's older brother, was similarly convinced, from the evidence he had seen
himself and what he had learned from others, that Gopal was his deceased
brother reborn. And Shaktipal Sharma's old friend from college days, R.A.
Haryana, expressed the opinion that Gopal was Shaktipal Sharma reborn. So did
Shaktipal Sharma's niece by marriage, Asha Sharma, who witnessed in Mathura
Gopal's ability to find his way from Shaktipal Sharma's house to the Sukh
Shancharak company and then to point out the correct location of the murderer
and victim at the time Shaktipal Sharma's brother shot him."

3.2.1.1 Evidence that casts doubt on the hypotheses of fraud and normal means
of communication as explanations of the case of Gopal Gupta

How are we to interpret this case? First let us consider the extensive and
detailed information about the life of Shaktipal Sharma that Gopal was reported
to have revealed before there was any reported contact between the two
families. Could Gopal have obtained this information by normal means of
communication at such a young age (beginning from his first revelation at two
and a half years old)? Using normal means of communication, it seems safe to
say that Gopal could not have obtained, at such a young age, so much
information about Shaktipal Sharma without his parents knowing about it. This
means that he obtained the information either by paranormal means (extrasensory
perception, possession, or reincarnation), or from his parents. If he obtained
the information from his parents, that means that his parents lied to Dr.
Stevenson and fraudulenty fabricated the whole story of Gopal being Shaktipal
Sharma reborn. The motive would presumably be fame and recognition (it is
doubtful that the motive would involve money since Dr. Stevenson did not
mention any hopes of monetary gains on the part of Gopal's parents). Dr.
Stevenson did not report any evidence indicating that Gopal's parents
fraudulently invented the case. Let us now consider what they would have had to
have done in order to invent the case. Since Shaktipal Sharma was a person of
no significance in Delhi, it is unlikely that Delhi newspapers would have
contained all the information (listed above) that Gopal was said to have
revealed about the life of Shaktipal Sharma. Thus if Gopal's parents had
fraudulently invented the case, it would have been extremely difficult for them
to obtain this information without doing extensive research in Mathura. They
could not have simply invented the information because, according to Dr.
Stevenson, it was later verified by the Sharmas. Gopal's parents testified that
they had never been to Mathura before the development of the case. Of course,
they could have lied about this if they invented the whole case. Assuming that
they would have been willing to go to all the trouble of doing research in
Mathura, how did they hear about Shaktipal Sharma in the first place? Perhaps
they just came to Mathura with the intention of finding out about anyone
noteworthy there. Granting this possibility, by suitable research they could
have obtained most of the information that Gopal was said to have revealed
about the life and murder of Shaktipal Sharma. But several problems still
remain, such as the report that Shaktipal Sharma's wife Subhadra Devi "fainted
when told about Gopal's memories of her husband's efforts to borrow money from
her before his murder." It seems unlikely that Gopal's parents could have
learned about these intimate details without becoming very close friends of the
Sharma family. And even then it seems highly unlikely that the Sharmas would
have revealed such details, even to their friends. Why would they talk about
Shaktipal Sharma's intimate dealings with his wife? Furthermore, it is almost
impossible that they could have become friends since they belonged to two
different castes: the Sharmas are Brahmins and the Guptas (Gopal's parents) are
from the lower caste called Banias. According to Dr. Stevenson, such caste
differences played a very important role in India at that time. In order for
the Guptas to have obtained this information we would have to believe that they
somehow convinced the Sharmas to reveal it to them. Then the Sharmas would have
had to have agreed with the Guptas that all of the members of both families
would lie to Dr. Stevenson when he asked them (as he always does in these
cases) if there had been any contact between the two families before the
development of the case. It is conceivable that this state of affairs might
have been desirable for the lower caste Gupta family, although the slight
recognition they gained from being involved in a reincarnation case hardly
seems to justify all the effort that would have been involved. But the real
problem is that it is not at all beneficial for the higher caste, wealthy
Sharma family. What conceivable benefit could they have derived by falsely
establishing Gopal Gupta as Shaktipal Sharma reborn? And in the course of doing
so, they would have revealed the embarassing character of one of their family
members, Brijendrapal Sharma, who, according to Dr. Stevenson, was 
irresponsible, inclined to drink alcohol excessively, and who lost control over
himself to the extent that he murdered his older brother, Shaktipal Sharma. It
is clear that to take part in such a fraud would have been totally unbeneficial
for the Sharmas. Thus, it seems utterly unlikely that the Guptas would have
been able to convince the Sharmas to engage in such a fraud. And of course the
caste differences preclude the establishing of friendship between the two
families. Thus, there would have been almost insurmountable difficulties in the
execution of such a fraud, and Dr. Stevenson did not report any evidence that
indicates that there was such a fraud. Dr. Stevenson said that he is especially
alert to the possibility of fraud during the course of his interviews with
persons involved in these cases. Another important aspect of this case is Dr.
Stevenson's report that Gopal impressed the members of the Sharma family by his
ability to recognize photographs of Shaktipal Sharma in which his face was not
visible. If the Sharma family was not part of a fraud instigated by the Guptas,
it would have been difficult for the Guptas to have obtained such photographs;
but without such photographs it would have been difficult to train Gopal to
recognize Shaktipal Sharma without seeing his face. If the Sharmas were not
part of the fraud, there would have been no reason for them to give slight
suggestions that might have aided Gopal in identifying Shaktipal Sharma in
photos where his face was not visible. Yet another noteworthy item is Dr.
Stevenson's report that Shaktipal Sharma's close friend from college days, R.A.
Haryana, heard Gopal say that Shaktipal Sharma had the unusual habit of keeping
financial records in his personal diary. Shaktipal Sharma's older brother,
Vishwapal Sharma, told Dr. Stevenson that this statement by Gopal was correct.
This is another example of a piece of information that would have been almost
impossible to obtain without an intimate friendship with the Sharma family. And
even with an intimate friendship, this is not the kind of information that is
likely to be discussed. Thus it seems that Gopal possessed knowledge that is
impossible to acquire by normal means; hence the evidence suggests that he
obtained it by one of several paranormal means. Could he have obtained the
knowledge by extrasensory perception (ESP)?

3.2.1.2 Evidence suggesting migration of the conscious self from one body to
another body, not extrasensory perception.

There are several facts that suggest that the case of Gopal Gupta, as well as
most of the dozens of other similar cases reported by Dr. Stevenson, are not
due to ESP. First, Dr. Stevenson asked Gopal's parents if Gopal had ever
displayed ESP other than in relation to information about Shaktipal Sharma. Dr.
Stevenson said that Gopal's parents did believe that he had some ESP ability,
but they were unable to provide very impressive examples. Thus it seems that
Gopal was only able to acquire truly impressive knowledge about one person,
Shaktipal Sharma. If the case is interpreted as ESP, then it seems strange that
it is a kind of ESP that only works for getting information about Shaktipal
Sharma and no one else. One would think that if Gopal had such strong powers of
ESP, then he would be able to acquire information about many different people
and not just about Shaktipal Sharma. Dr. Stevenson generalized this conclusion
for almost all the other cases he reported, since in these cases also the
subject was only able to obtain impressive information about one person -- the
person he claimed to have been in his previous life. Another important aspect
of the case that seems to suggest migration of the conscious self from one body
to another and not ESP is that Gopal Gupta identified himself as Shaktipal
Sharma. And not only for a short time, but for years. He said things like: "I
am a Sharma", "I have many servants to pick up utensils", "I have a large
home", "I own a company called Sukh Shancharak", etc. When Gopal visited the
house of Shaktipal Sharma in Mathura, he said (Stevenson, 1974a, p.97): "'This
is my house'. Inside the house he said: 'This is my living room'. When he
touched the piano in the Sharma house and was reproached for doing so, Gopal
retorted: 'Why should I not touch it? It belongs to me'. Later, in another
room, he said, 'This is my bedroom', correctly indicating the room where
Shaktipal Sharma had slept." Thus Gopal did not feel that he was acquiring the
information from someone who knew about Shaktipal Sharma, rather Gopal
experienced himself to be Shaktipal Sharma and he was remembering events that
he had performed as Shaktipal Sharma. This is said to be different from the
experience one has when he acquires information by ESP. In a case of ESP, one
recognizes that the information does not pertain to himself, but rather to
someone else. Dr. Stevenson applied this argument to most of his dozens of
other cases, since in these cases the subject also identified himself as the
previous personality. Gopal acted in a way that was appropriate for Shaktipal
Sharma. For example, he was not affectionate to the widow of Shaktipal Sharma
and this accords well with the fact that Shaktipal Sharma was unhappily married
to his wife. Gopal sometimes complained about the poor living conditions in the
Gupta residence and compared it unfavorably with the large house that he said
he owned as Shaktipal Sharma. Gopal was reluctant to do menial housework -- he
claimed that he had many servants to do this type of work. Of course this is
perfectly appropriate behavior for Shaktipal Sharma. Not only in the case of
Gopal, but also in Dr. Stevenson's many other cases, the subject acted in a way
that was appropriate for the previous personality. Thus, although the two
arguments given above, namely that the subjects in Dr. Stevenson's reports
were: (A) only able to paranormally acquire information about one person (the
person they claimed to have been in a previous life); and (B) strongly
identified with and exhibited the behavior of the person they claimed to have
been in a previous life, do not exclude the ESP interpretation, they seem to be
more in favor of the interpretation of migration of the conscious self from one
body to another. If the above reasoning is correct, then it seems that there
are only two final interpretations remaining: reincarnation and possession. By
possession we mean that a conscious self, after departing from his old body,
displaces another self from his body and takes control of the body.
Reincarnation means that the conscious self does not displace another conscious
self from his body, rather he enters the body during the early stages of its
development within the womb and is the first resident of this body. Thus, in
the interpretation of reincarnation, the movement of the self from one body to
the next is not an unusual event --it is the natural process that all
(materially attached) conscious selves experience when their physical bodies
die. Actually, the body is never dead or alive. It is simply a machine. So what
we mean by "death" is the situation in which the body no longer functions and
the self departs from it. If one accepts either of these two interpretations
(reincarnation or possession), then he implicitly accepts the concept that the
conscious self is fundamentally different from the material body and can
function independently of it.

3.2.2 Cases in which a child claims to remember a previous life are not rare

The death of old bodies and the birth of new bodies is taking place continually
around us. If reincarnation is actually true, then it must be taking place in
great numbers. Hence there should be abundant evidence for it. Dr. Stevenson
said that cases such as that of Gopal Gupta in which a child claims to have
been a specific person in his last life are in fact quite common. Dr. Stevenson
reported that in certain countries (such as Lebanon, Turkey, and among the
Tlingit Indians of Alaska) where a child is not strongly criticized for talking
about a past life, he has received so many reports of possible cases that he
simply does not have enough time to investigate them! Typically these are cases
among uneducated villagers who do not gain any money by reporting them. They
also gain no fame since in these villages reincarnation is accepted as an
ordinary fact of life, in much the same way that Westerners accept the
alternation of seasons from winter to spring to summer to fall. Thus, there
seems to be very little motive for fraudulently inventing such a case,
especially considering how much work is required to successfully do it (this
was discussed in great detail in the case of Gopal Gupta described earlier).
Dr. Stevenson said (1975, p.3): "I can put my finger on several countries on 
a map and positively guarantee that if an investigator goes to the place
indicated he will find cases similar to those described in this book within 50
kilometers, or even within 10, of the place I point out". He also said (1980,
p.351): "I should have no difficulty whatever in indicating places in several
countries where an investigator can easily find more cases of this type than he
could possibly study." It is very unusual for a child to persist in talking
about something when he is continually criticized by his parents for doing so.
Furthermore, parents who do not believe that reincarnation is possible will
certainly not report such cases and hence they can not come to the attention of
responsible and meticulous investigators like Dr. Stevenson. This explains why
there are a smaller number of reported cases in America (excluding Alaska) and
in the European countries. But even in these countries Dr. Stevenson has found
cases of the reincarnation type.

3.2.3 Possession seems to be accompanied by an abrupt and striking change of
behavior: The case of Jasbir

Each one of us knows that he is conscious by direct experience. But how can one
determine if others are also conscious? As we discussed earlier, it is
conceivable that a machine could be built that behaves exactly like a human
being, including carrying on a normal human conversation. A special interface
arrangement (see section 2.2) apparently connects the conscious self with his
physical body, which is nothing more than a machine. Hence, with a suitable
interface arrangement, it is conceivable that a conscious self could be
connected with a robot body and computer brain. Let us now consider, however, 
a kind of machine that does not house a conscious self -- it simply acts
mechanically according to sophisticated programing and thereby duplicates human
behavior but lacks internal conscious experience. The fact that it is able to
behave like a human being although it is devoid of consciousness means that one
can not determine if a machine (either a computer or a biological machine such
as a human body, an animal body, a plant body, a bacterium body or a virus
body) is inhabited by a conscious self solely by observing its behavior. We can
conceive of a society that has perfected its technology to the point of being
able to build a computer that functions exactly like the human brain and 
a robot body that has been cleverly crafted with extreme skill to the point that
it appears exactly like a human body. The bodily appearance and behavior of
such a robot would so closely duplicate human appearance and behavior that if
you were in a room in which there were many such robots and many human beings,
you would be completely unable to determine which are the robots and which are
the human beings. Imagine your surprise if you discovered that your closest
friend, the one who you played with, rode horses with, wrestled with, swam
with, went to the movies with, etc for the last thirty years, is just a machine!
After this shocking experience, you would always be wondering which of
your friends is a human being and which is a robot. Such a situation might
inspire one to accept the philosphical position known as "solipsism" in which
one considers himself to be the only conscious person and all other humans are
simply machines. But since no one in our society has yet succeeded in building
such robots, those who recognize the phenomena of consciousness generally grant
the same conscious status to all human beings (it would be very strange if only
one human being were conscious and all the others were merely machines).
Strictly speaking, however, unless one is "self-realized", one can not
determine whether anyone other than himself is actually conscious. (Let us
define a "self-realized" conscious self as one who realizes that he is totally
distinct from his physical body and all material elements and who is able to
use the non-physical senses of the self to directly perceive other selves,
instead of only perceiving their physical bodies as non-self-realized selves
do. I shall discuss this more in the last chapter). The only reason that we
assume that other human beings are conscious is because they look like us and
behave the way we do, and we have no experience that something can look like 
a human being and behave like a human being if it is not a human being. Thus we
(the non-self-realized selves) can not really determine if there is a conscious
self in the bodies of other human beings, but it is reasonable to assume that
there is. Although the conscious self is different from patterns of behavior,
characteristically each self has a pattern of behavior that we attribute
uniquely to him. This is in fact the way that we identify other people (aside
from the physical body). In cases of possession, since the physical body has
not changed, the only reason that a man's friends think that he is not the same
person is, characteristically, an abrupt and striking change of behavior.
Without such a change in behavior, there would be no reason to claim that the
original self has been replaced by another self. In this regard it is
significant to note that in the vast majority of Dr. Stevenson's cases, which
are the cases that he feels are best explained as reincarnation, persons who
have known the children over many years (and those, such as the parents, who
have known them right from birth) do not say that there was an abrupt and
striking change in their behavior at any point in their lives. Hence those who
claim that all of Dr. Stevenson's cases should be interpreted as possession
must explain this absence of a change in behavior. In order to illustrate the
remarkable and abrupt change of behavior that is said to result from
possession, let us now briefly examine a case of what appears to be possession
from India (Stevenson, 1974a, p.34-52) in which a young boy named Jasbir was so
severely afflicted by the disease smallpox that his father, Sri Girdhari Lal
Jat was convinced that he had died. In fact, he was so convinced of this that
he was preparing to bury the "dead" body of his son. It happened to be night at
that time so he decided to wait until morning to bury it. Before the burial,
however, Jasbir's father noticed faint signs of life in his son's body, and
gradually the body recovered completely. But when the body had recovered, it
displayed a personality and behavior completely different from the former one.
Now Jasbir claimed that he was the son of Shankar of Vehedi (a village that is
approximately 30 kilometers away from Rasulpur, the village where Sri Girdhari
Lal Jat lived) and expressed the desire to return to Vehedi. He claimed that he
was a brahmin, and he obstinately refused to eat any food at the house of his
father since Sri Girdhari Lal Jat belonged to a lower caste (his refusal to eat
can not have been due to disease since his body had recovered completely by
then). He was so strongly determined in this matter that he fasted! This
fasting would have surely resulted in the death of his body if a brahmin lady
had not happened to learn of it and kindly began cooking food according to the
brahminical standard. Such food was acceptable to Jasbir. For nearly two years
he maintained his refusal to eat food cooked by non-brahmins. Children of
Jasbir's age (3 years old at the time of this remarkable transformation of
personality) are invariably very enthusiastic about eating. It is practically
inconceivable that a child would refuse to eat for no other reason than the
food is prepared by one class of persons instead of another. Such 
discrimination and determination are only found in adults; indeed, it is even
rare among adults. Thus this discrimination seems to strongly support the
hypothesis that the conscious self that was originally in the body of Jasbir
had departed, and a different conscious self (that of a discriminating adult
brahmin -- brahmins are characteristically discriminating about what kind of
food they eat, and they do not develop intimate friendships with persons in
lower classes) had taken control of Jasbir's body. The self in the body of
Jasbir told Sri Girdhari Lal Jat about further details of his life in Vehedi
before he entered the body of Jasbir. He said that on one occasion he was
attending a wedding procession and he ate some poisoned sweets given to him by
a man to whom he had lent money and who did not want to repay him. The poisoned
sweets caused him to fall from a cart on which he was riding. He struck his
head and died. Both Vehedi and Rasulpur are tiny villages and are only
accessible by dirt roads. There is no main road connecting them and there is
almost no communication between them. Sri Girdhari Lal Jat informed Dr.
Stevenson that he tried to suppress information about Jasbir's strange behavior
and his claim to be a brahmin from Vehedi now inhabiting the body of Jasbir.
But the cooking for Jasbir according to brahminical standards was known to the
brahmins of Rasulpur. One of them named Srimati Shyamo, a native of Rasulpur,
had married a man from Vehedi named Sri Ravi Dutt Sukla and was living with him
in Vehedi. Once every few years she would return to Rasulpur. She informed the
members of the Tyagi family in Vehedi about Jasbir's behavior and statements.
Jasbir's statements about his former life in Vehedi and his death were
remarkably similar to the life and death of one of the sons (named Sobha Ram)
of Sri Shankar Lal Tyagi (a brahmin living in Vehedi). Sobha Ram had died when
he was 22 years old in the manner described earlier by Jasbir. He died in May
of 1954 which, as far as can be determined, seems to have also been around the
time when Jasbir was severely afflicted with smallpox (and after recovering,
manifested the remarkable change in personality). As mentioned before, after
recovering, Jasbir claimed that he was the son of Shankar of Vehedi. Sobha
Ram's father and other family members came to visit Jasbir in Rasulpur, and
Jasbir recognized them and correctly stated their relationship to Sobha Ram.
Then Jasbir went to Vehedi for the first time in his life. In Vehedi, Jasbir
was able to correctly lead the way from the railway station to Sobha Ram's
house. Jasbir was also able to correctly lead the way from Sri Ravi Dutt
Sukla's house to Sobha Ram's house (a different route). Jasbir remained in
Vehedi for a few days. Dr. Stevenson (1974a, p.36) reported: "He (Jasbir)
remained some days in the village (Vehedi) and demonstrated to the Tyagi family
and other villagers a detailed knowledge of the Tyagi family and its affairs.
He enjoyed himself greatly in Vehedi and returned to Rasulpur with great
reluctance. Afterwards Jasbir continued to visit Vehedi from time to time,
usually for several weeks or more in the summer. He still wanted to live in
Vehedi and felt isolated and lonely in Rasulpur." In the summer of 1961, Dr.
Stevenson visited both Rasulpur and Vehedi and interviewed thirteen witnesses
of the case. He returned in 1964 and restudied the case with new translators.
At this time he interviewed most of the previous witnesses and some new ones.
He said that these witnesses provided a consistent account of the main facts in
the case. The members of both of the families, the Tyagis and the Jats,
testified that there had been absolutely no contact between the two families
before the development of the case. "Indeed, they and other villagers asserted
that they had barely heard of the name of the village of the other family"
(Stevenson, 1974a, p.36). Through these numerous interviews Dr. Stevenson
became convinced that there was no motive for fraud and no opportunity that
Jasbir could have obtained the knowledge he had about Sobha Ram, Vehedi and the
Tyagi family by normal means (using the ordinary physical senses). He therefore
concluded that this case is best explained as the departure of the conscious
self that had formerly inhabited the body of Jasbir and the entrance into
Jasbir's body of the conscious self that had formerly resided in the body of
Sobha Ram. As previously noted, a significant feature of this case is Jasbir's
abrupt and striking change of behavior after recovering from smallpox. He then
strongly identified with Sobha Ram and refused to eat with the Jats. Dr.
Stevenson (1974a, p.39) reported that Sri Girdhari Lal Jat had said that when
Jasbir began to speak after his recovery from smallpox he used a different set
of words for familiar objects than he had used before his illness. For example,
he would say "haveli" instead of "hilli" for a house, and "kapra" instead of
"latta" for clothes. The words "haveli" and "kapra" are used by the higher
classes (including the brahmins) whereas "hilli" and "latta" are used by the
lower classes (such as the Jats). Thus, after recovering, Jasbir no longer
spoke like Sri Girdhari Lal Jat but instead he spoke like Sobha Ram 
(a brahmin). "Jasbir felt (and still felt in 1964) a strong attachment to the
Tyagi family in Vehedi. He threatened to run away from Rasulpur to Vehedi on at
least one occasion. He seems to have thought of himself very much as an adult
and at first talked freely in Rasulpur of having a wife and children. Later,
teasing and scolding led him to control his utterances. But still it seemed
natural for him to think of Vehedi and his possessions there. Once when Jasbir
was about six, his mother fell ill and Jasbir said if the family needed money
for treatment he had money in his coat in Vehedi." "Jasbir showed affection for
all the Tyagi family, but his behavior toward them was perhaps most noticeable
in regard to Baleshwar, the son of Sobha Ram. When Jasbir visited in Vehedi, he
and Baleshwar slept together on the same cot, something unusual for strangers
to do, but appropriate for a father and son. When Baleshwar went to school in
the morning, Jasbir complained. If someone in Vehedi gave a gift to Jasbir, he
passed it on to Baleshwar." "Both the Tyagi and the Jat families agreed that
Jasbir was happy at Vehedi. When someone from Rasulpur called at Vehedi to take
him back to Rasulpur after a visit with the Tyagis he resisted and sometimes
cried. In Rasulpur, on the other hand, Jasbir was lonely and something of an
outcast. During my visit in 1961 I easily noticed that he did not play with the
other children, but stayed aloof and isolated. ... Sri Girdhari Lal Jat stated
during this visit that before his change of personality Jasbir had been fond of
toys and of play, but afterwards became disinterested in these" (Stevenson,
1974a, p.39).

3.2.4 Functioning without a physical body

The conscious self in the body of Jasbir informed Dr. Stevenson in 1961 that
after his former physical body (the body of Sobha Ram) had been poisoned and
had died, he had left that body and was existing temporarily in a disembodied
condition. While in this condition, he said that he met another disembodied
self who he called a "sadhu" who advised him to enter into the body of Jasbir
("sadhu" is an Indian word for a wise man). The sadhu was apparently not at all
inconvenienced by being without a physical body, and in fact was able to
function quite well without one. So well, in fact, that he knew that the body
of Jasbir was not inhabited at that time and was therefore able to advise the
self that was formerly in the body of Sobha Ram to enter into the body of
Jasbir. Years after this event had occured, Jasbir told Dr. Stevenson that he
still sometimes was able to communicate with this sadhu, who correctly
predicted events that were to occur in his life. Jasbir's testimony that he and
the sadhu were able to function independently of a physical body is consistent
with the reports of Dr. Michael Sabom discussed earlier. The evidence seems to
support the hypothesis that the conscious self is equipped with a non-physical
mind, intelligence and senses. Some conscious selves, such as this sadhu, are
apparently able to remain in the non-physical condition and are able to acquire
information (using non-physical senses) that is impossible to acquire using the
ordinary physical senses. Thus we see in cases of possession (such as
apparently the case of Jasbir) that at a certain point in time there is an
abrupt and important change in personality and behavior (eating habits, playing
habits, speech, desires, etc). But in the many cases that Dr. Stevenson feels
are best explained as reincarnation, persons who have known the children
intimately their whole lives do not report an abrupt change of this sort. Thus,
if we explain these cases as possession, then it must be a kind of possession
where the invading self enters the child's body when it is so young that the
self originally in it does not yet have an opportunity to exhibit his
characteristic behavior and personality (a possible explanation is that the
self is always transcendental and has a non-physical mind, intelligence and
senses; but when he is in a physical body, if he has not cultivated knowledge
of the self, he tends to completely identify with the physical body he is in
-- in this condition his power to express himself is limited by the
capabilities of that body). If the case of Jasbir is a reliable guide, then the
invading self would have to enter at an age younger than around three years
old. It also seems that, since Dr. Stevenson reported that there is no evidence
of an abrupt change in behavior even over many years thereafter, the invading
self would have to remain in the child's body over many years as it grows to
maturity. And since Dr. Stevenson reported that cases in which a young child
claims to have been a specific person in his previous life are actually common,
this seems to indicate that this kind of possession occurs fairly often. When
these points are taken into account, it seems that the kind of possession that
we have been considering is practically the same as reincarnation. And if the
conscious self can enter another body after his old and useless one has stopped
functioning, then it is not inconceivable that each time his physical body
stops functioning he would leave it and move to another. The reasons that
induced a self to reincarnate the first time can also induce him to reincarnate
repeatedly. Thus there appears to be no theoretical barrier to the concept
that each self undergoes a series of reincarnations. I am not aware of any
empirical evidence to support this concept, but the absence of such evidence
may be due to the difficulty in finding people who can provide verifiable
details of events that took place so long ago.

3.2.5 Distinctive physical marks: The case of Corliss Chotkin, Jr.

Another fascinating kind of evidence are Dr. Stevenson's reports of cases of
distinctive physical marks in the same locations on the body of a person both
in his present life and in his previous life. In a case among the Tlingit
Indians of Alaska (Stevenson, 1974a, p.259), a full-blooded Tlingit Indian
named Victor Vincent informed a young friend of his, Mrs. Chotkin, that he will
die soon and be reborn as her son. He expressed the desire that in his next
life as her son he would not stutter as he did in this life. He pulled up his
shirt and showed her a scar on his back that was the result of a surgical
operation performed several years earlier. It was undoubtedly the result of an
operation, because the small round holes of the stitches were visible. He also
showed her a scar at the base of the right side of his nose that was the result
of a surgical operation there. He informed her that in his next life as her son
he will have the same marks on his body in the same places. A year later he
died. Approximately eighteen months thereafter Mrs. Chotkin gave birth to a boy
who she named Corliss Chotkin, Jr. (after his father). On the body of Corliss
at the time of his birth were the same marks in the same places as had been on
the body of Victor Vincent. In 1962 Dr. Stevenson visited Alaska and personally
examined the marks on the body of Corliss. He reported (1974a, p.260): "The
mark at the root of the nose, said to have been originally at the same site
exactly as the scar at the root of Victor Vincent's nose, had moved inferiorly
until it lay on the right nares of Corliss Chotkin, Jr., who was fifteen years
old in 1962." "The mark on the back of Corliss was much more characteristic of
an operative scar. It was located about eight inches below the shoulder line
and two inches to the right of the midline. It was heavily pigmented and
raised. It extended about one inch in length and a quarter inch in width. Along
its margins one could still easily discern several small round marks outside
the main scar. Four of these on one side lined up like the stitch wounds of
surgical operations." Dr. Stevenson reported that Mrs. Chotkin is the daughter
of Victor Vincent's sister. Could the marks on the body of Corliss be the
result of genetic information passed down from Victor Vincent? According to
modern biology there is no possiblity that these marks appeared on the body of
Corliss due to genetic inheritance, since surgical marks acquired during one's
life can not be encoded in the DNA of one's germ cells. Biologists strongly
assert that the only means whereby characteristics can be passed on to one's
progeny is the expression of encoded information in the DNA. They do not
recognize any evidence that characteristics acquired during one's life can be
passed on to one's progeny. Hence, the report that distinctive marks on Victor
Vincent's body appeared on the body of Corliss is utterly inexplicable to
biologists. But if, as Dr. Stevenson reported, it is actually true, then it
calls for some kind of explanation. Such an explanation would necessarily
involve principles that have not yet been recognized by biologists. Mrs.
Chotkin told Dr. Stevenson that no one else in their family had any marks in
the places of those on the body of Corliss. Dr. Stevenson mentioned that he has
many cases in which a child reported that he was violently murdered (usually by
shooting or stabbing) in his previous life, and the child has on his body 
a birthmark in the same place as the fatal wound in his previous life. As
mentioned earlier, Mrs. Chotkin named her son Corliss and, as is natural for 
a mother, tried to make him say this name when he was asked what his name is. 
One day when Corliss was thirteen months old and his mother was trying to get 
him to say his name, instead of saying the name "Corliss", her son greatly
surprised her by saying "Don't you recognize me, I am Kahkody"! Kahkody was the
tribal Tlingit Indian name of Victor Vincent, and Corliss pronounced it with an
excellent Tlingit accent. Corliss was able to spontaneously recognize a number
of people that Victor Vincent had known, and he identified strongly with Victor
Vincent. Dr. Stevenson (1974a, p.261) said: "When Corliss was two years old and
being wheeled along the street in Sitka (Alaska) by his mother, he
spontaneously recognized a stepdaughter of Victor Vincent, and called her
correctly by her name, Susie. He showed great excitement on seeing her and,
jumping up and down, said: 'There's my Susie.' This recognition took place at 
the docks in Sitka. Mrs. Chotkin happened to be there with her son and an older
foster son (four years older than Corliss). They were not there to meet Susie
and neither Mrs. Chotkin nor her foster son had noticed Susie when Corliss
recognized her. After the first recognition, Corliss hugged Susie
affectionately and also spoke her Tlingit name. He kept repeating: 'My Susie.'"
"When Corliss was still two years old he recognized William, the son of Victor
Vincent. This man had come on a visit to Sitka unknown to Mrs. Chotkin and, as
with Susie, Corliss spotted him spontaneously on the street and said: 'There is
William, my son.'" In a similar way Corliss, when he was three years old,
spontaneously recognized and named the widow of Victor Vincent. He recognized
her in a crowd of people before Mrs. Chotkin had seen her. He correctly named
her "Rose." Dr. Stevenson reported that Corliss also recognized a number of
other people that Victor Vincent had known. Dr. Stevenson (1974a, p.261-262)
reported that Corliss was able to provide a detailed account of certain events
that had occured in the life of Victor Vincent. Mrs. Chotkin believes that
Corliss could not have known these details by ordinary means. One day Corliss
related an experience of Victor Vincent when he was out on a fishing trip. The
engine of Victor Vincent's boat had broken down and he was helpless in one of
the numerous and hazardous channels of southeastern Alaska. Victor Vincent
wanted to attract the attention of any ships that might happen to pass by, but
he thought that most crews would not take much notice of an ordinary Tlingit
fisherman. It turns out that he happened to be a part-time worker for the
Salvation Army and that he had with him a Salvation Army uniform. He put on
this uniform and rowed in a small boat to attract the attention of a passing
ship named the North Star. He asked some of the crew members to deliver 
a message for him. Mrs. Chotkin heard this story directly from Victor Vincent
himself when he was alive. She was sure that Corliss had not heard the story
from her or her husband before he told it to them that one day. Another time
Mrs. Chotkin and Corliss were at the house that was previously owned by Mrs.
Chotkin and her family during the life of Victor Vincent. Corliss pointed to 
a room in the house and said that he (as Victor Vincent) and his wife slept in
this room when they visited the Chotkins. This statement is impressive since at
the time Corliss was visiting the house it had been reorganized and was being
used for purposes other than for an ordinary residential house. None of the
rooms in it were recognizable as bedrooms. But the room that Corliss pointed to
had in fact been occupied by Victor Vincent and his wife when they had visited
the Chotkins. Mrs. Chotkin told Dr. Stevenson that certain behavior patterns of
Corliss closely resembled those of Victor Vincent. She mentioned that Corliss
combed his hair forward over his forehead in the same way that Victor Vincent
had done, although she had tried to train Corliss to comb his hair in exactly
the opposite manner. As mentioned earlier, Victor Vincent stuttered severely
and told Mrs. Chotkin a year before his death that he hoped that he would
stutter less in his next life as her son. Corliss also stuttered severely when
he was young until he received speech therapy when he was around ten years old.
Victor Vincent was a very religious Christian. When he was young, Corliss also
expressed similar devoutness. Dr. Stevenson (1974a, p.262) said: "Victor
Vincent enjoyed boats and living on the water. He would rather have lived on
water than on land. He was skillful with boats and their engines. Corliss had 
a similar fondness for the water and had expressed a wish to live roaming in 
a boat. He also had a precocious aptitude for handling and repairing engines. He
taught himself how to run boat engines without lessons. It was unlikely that he
inherited this skill from his father since his father had no aptitude for
engines, and Corliss easily repaired a broken engine which his father could not
mend." Dr. Stevenson reported that he was unable to find any evidence of fraud
in this case and no evidence that anyone involved in the case could have gained
anything by concocting it.

3.2.6 If reincarnation is actually true, then why is the human population on
earth increasing?

If reincarnation is true, then how can we explain the report that the human
population on earth has been increasing during (at least) the last few hundred
years? One possibility is that the conscious self can reside in various
non-human bodies, such as animals, plants and bacteria, and when these bodies
are no longer functioning the conscious selves in them can be transfered into
the wombs of human mothers. As described in chapter 2, the superself links 
a conscious self to a human body, but there does not appear to be any reason 
why he could not also link a conscious self to a non-human body such as 
an animal body.

3.2.7 If the self is completely different from his brain, then why does damage
to specific parts of the brain result in the loss of specific abilities?

Thus far I have presented evidence and arguments that suggest that the
conscious self is fundamentally different from his physical body and can
function independently of it. At this point one might ask the following
question: It has been observed that damage to certain parts of the brain
results in the loss of specific functions. For example, damage to specific
sections of the brain responsible for the processing of visual stimuli results
in various kinds of partial blindness, as discussed earlier in section 2.1.1.
If the jiva is different from his physical brain, then why does damage to his
brain result in impairement of his capabilities? A possible answer to this
question is that the conscious self may use his physical brain in a similar way
to a computer programmer using a computer. Suppose that a business man has
stored all the records for running his business on his computer and his
computer breaks down. The man himself has not been damaged but since he relies
heavily on his computer to run his business, his ability to run his business is
impaired when his computer no longer functions. Similarly, the conscious self
may rely on the information processing functions of his brain and if they are
damaged, his ability to perform certain activities in the physical world may
also be impaired, although he himself has not been damaged.


4. Conclusion

The evidence and arguments presented thus far suggest that the conscious self
is inherently different from his physical body and can work independently of
it. Furthermore, some of the evidence presented by Dr. Sabom and Dr. Stevenson
suggests that the conscious self has non-physical senses of perception. This
opens up the possibility that the conscious self has a complete non-physical
body. This is, of course, a fascinating subject, and one might wonder if there
is any way to directly experience this non-physical body. If we actually are
the conscious self, then it would be strange indeed if there were no way to
directly realize this. It turns out that there are in fact philosophical
systems that claim to be able to grant one this realization by direct
perception, not merely some kind of blind faith. One such system is called
bhakti yoga. It contains systematic techniques that are supposed to gradually
elevate one to the platform of being able to directly perceive that he is
different from his physical body. These techniques are described in a series of
books by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (1983, 1987). One might raise the
question that, if we are actually transcendental all the time, why does each
person identify with his physical body? This identification is so strong that
most people do not seriously consider the possiblity that they might be
different from their physical bodies. According to the philosophy of bhakti
yoga, because we are so strongly attached to identifying with and trying to
enjoy our physical bodies, we have lost the ability to see that we are
different from our physical bodies. The conscious self does not need to
identify with or try to enjoy a physical body. He can function quite well, in
fact much better, without one. This does not mean that the philosophy of bhakti
yoga advocates that one should neglect or destroy his physical body. One should
maintain it the way one maintains any valuable machine one owns. Suicide is
useless, since if one is attached to his physical body at the time he leaves it
(death), this attachment will result in his getting another physical body.
Reincarnation is part of the philosophy of bhakti yoga -- one continues to get
physical bodies one after another until he finally renounces the desire to
enjoy them. The desire to enjoy is natural and need not be renounced, but the
desire to enjoy the physical body is unnatural and should be renounced if one
wants to realize his real nature. The conscious self does not need to enjoy the
physical body, since there is a much higher level of enjoyment available
through the transcendental body. According to the philosophy of bhakti yoga,
the self-realized self has a complete transcendental body that is equipped with
all the senses of action and perception that the physical body has. But the
difference is that the senses of the transcendental body are not composed of
physical elements such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. The transcendental
senses are superior to the physical senses. The physical body is subject to
disease, old age, and death, but the transcendental body is not subject to any
of these deficiencies. If one is able to use his transcendental senses, then
he can directly perceive his actual self, other conscious selves, and the
superself. Persons who are unable to use their inherent transcendental senses
are not capable of directly perceiving their actual non-physical nature and the
superself. Such persons might claim that the realizations of self-realized
persons are nothing more than imagination. But a group of self-realized persons
can discuss their perceptions of the self and the superself among themselves
and feel confident that they are all seeing the same real phenomena, in the
same way that a group of seeing persons can discuss among themselves their
perceptions of a sunset and feel confident that they are all seeing the same
real phenomenon. Persons blind from birth who are listening to this discussion
about the sunset might conclude that the seeing persons are all in illusion,
but the seeing persons are confident that they are seeing something real. It
would be unjustified for a blind person to declare that all the seeing persons
are in illusion and that they have concocted something they call a "sunset."
The blind person is simply not able to perceive the phenomenon being discussed
by the seeing persons. He can not say whether it exists or not. He can only say
that he himself is unable to perceive the phenomenon being discussed by the
seeing persons. Similarly, it would be unjustified for a person who is unable
to use his transcendental senses to declare that the self and superself do not
exist. All that he can honestly say is that he himself is unable to directly
perceive the self and the superself. According to the philosophy of bhakti
yoga, the key to obtaining our transcendental bodies is to establish a positive
relationship with the superself. Such a relationship is natural since we are
always in contact with the superself. Actually, the superself is nearer to each
individual self than the self is to his own body! As discussed earlier, the
individual self can not even move any of the muscles in his own physical body
without the help of the superself who is aware of his desire and fulfills it.
Nor can the individual self receive any information from the senses of his
physical body without the help of the superself. Relating positively to the
superself allows the individual self to experience a level of pleasure far
superior to that which is obtainable through the physical body or ordinary
mundane relationships and activities. This pleasure can be directly perceived
by each conscious self if he practices the process of bhakti yoga. By
experiencing this higher pleasure, one naturally loses interest in mundane
pleasures and relationships. In this way one's attachment to his physical body
decreases. The more this attachment decreases, the more one is able to directly
perceive that he is different from his physical body. In this way one gradually
obtains his transcendental body and attains a superior living condition. The
philosophy of bhakti yoga includes detailed descriptions of the nature of the
individual conscious self, the nature of the superself, and the nature of the
relationship between them. In addition, it also presents techniques for
verifying these descriptions.


Bibliography

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (1983) Srimad Bhagavatam. Grodinge
(Sweden): Bhaktivedanta Book Trust

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (1987) Bhagavad-gita Wie Sie Ist. Grodinge
(Sweden): Bhaktivedanta Book Trust

P. Cvitanovic (editor) (1984) Universality in Chaos. Bristol: Adam Hilger

J. Fodor (1981) "The Mind Body Problem". Scientific American, January 1981,
volume 244, Number 1

M. Livingstone (1988) "Art, Illusion, and the Visual System". Scientific
American, January 1988, pages 68-75

E.N. Lorenz (1963) "Deterministic Non-periodic Flow", Journal of Atmospheric
Science, volume 20, pages 130-141

R. Penrose (1990) The Emperor's New Mind. New York: Vintage Press

K. Popper and J. Eccles (1977) The Self and Its Brain. Berlin: Springer
International

M. Sabom (1982) Recollections of Death, A Medical Investigation. New York:
Harper and Row

I. Stevenson (1974a) Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. Charlottesville:
University Press of Virginia

I. Stevenson (1974b) Xenoglossy. Bristol: Wright Pub.

I. Stevenson (1976) Reinkarnation. Freiburg: Aurum Verlag

I. Stevenson, Cases of the Reincarnation Type. Charlottesville: University
Press of Virginia Volume 1, India, 1975 Volume 2, Sri Lanka, 1977 Volume 3,
Lebanon and Turkey, 1980 Volume 4, Burma and Thailand, 1983 etc.

I. Stevenson (1984) Unlearned Language. Charlottesville: University Press of
Virginia

R. Thompson (1981) Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science. Los Angeles:
Bhaktivedanta Book Trust

R. Thompson (1989) Mind and Brain (video). San Diego: Bhaktivedanta Institute

R. Thompson (1991) "The clockwork universe in chaos". Back To Godhead Magazine,
July 1991, pages 12-16

E. Wigner (1964) "Two Kinds of Reality". The Monist, 1964, volume 48, page 250

