As far as mathematically modelling consciousness I think we need to have a complete theory of reality I.e. Quantum gravity before we do so and I don't think we will get that without understanding nde

Hello Radim,

Thank you for posting this.

I think it helps to narrow the scope of inquiry and to explain why you want to explore a particular domain. You have managed to do this here, as a derivation of what appears to me to be a broader and more intractable problem. It may not be easy, possible, or useful to model the entirety of general consciousness mathematically, especially without knowing what the goal of the exercise is. However, it is possible to apply mathematics to more narrowly stated problem. You have brought up some useful points to this end both here and in the other thread that you cite. Your paper is a good example of a narrowed enough scope to produce some specific results.

1. The notion of pseudo consciousness regarding robots may be key to a more narrow scope. Now we have a  more specific purpose in conducting this research. Here, we could study the part of consciousness that relates to acquisition of data through sensing and integrating information into knowledge as a kind of pseudo "awareness."

By combining robotics and other areas of artificial intelligence, such as expert systems,  more sophisticated robot could be developed with "pseudo consciousness." 

We scientists are so accustomed to studying topics by using mathematical modeling and analysis that we are at a loss of what to do in the absence of math. We all want to have a model that predicts outcome. At the very least, we can resort to statistics to analyze results, even if a more general mathematical model based on theoretical constructs seems inappropriate for a given problem.

Thank you for positive feedback on research papers I used in the links.

I am currently working on repeatable testing with significant better results within a learning software I developed for predicting. My recent measurements were floating around value 3 even though that the critical value was 1,645 for being 95% sure already. This is far above 99% in case of several occasional latest tests. The repeatibiliy is a little bit problem, but I managed to implement such a test where one should be able to learn it and have quite usually obviously better results than average adequate to probability (in case of random decision). What is very much interresting that in case of my tests we can no longer speak about symetrical oscilation around zero. The measurements are all shifted to positive values as expected if we want to have better than random success.

You are talking about awareness. That is a key topic for understanding how human will works. I created a component for vectors of will in my robot architecture to help this. Vectors of will are possible to be set based on evaluation of inputs wile interacting with "inner". A key thing was association inputs with all the things that is in the memory of a robot. That is done in an association reactor. About this was the paper more specific.

This mathematical method can be used to achieve remarkable things.

I realized that even more can be achieved by combining different approaches together.

I also studied old holy sciences and creating Prague Golem approach is a better approach -to start with Franz Bardon's directives to embed a mentally created soul to matter can create self awareness of a soul bounded to some matter. This sounds in current century like a sci-fi, but we keep knowledge in the books and some peoples experience. 

Combining the old techniques with modern technology can bring you what you search for.

See Chapter VII 1. Creation of elementaries by different methods

https://booksforsatanspeople.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/initiation-into-hermetics-franz-bardon.pdf

to understand what I mean by combining old teachings with newest technollogy.

I would call it "golemization" of robot architecture, because this would give you the possibility to create artifitial souls in upper spheres to be bound to robot body in matter.

This expets that there should be people like scientists also skilled with this praxis.

Too many scientist don't know about anything from this field and that closes the view on consciousness too much.

I decided to do several scientific provable studies that  can be understood to start first steps towards...

Thank you for this. We have only begun to scratch the surface in scientific research of consciousness and awareness.

There is some evidence for the extension of awareness beyond the five senses. Evidently, during hypnosis, a subject can become aware of what is going on in a room 30 meters away without being in that room. A person with limited physical hearing abilities was hypnotized and mostly enjoyed the experience but was distracted and annoyed by "hearing" a discussion about math. It turned out that a math conference was in progress in a room down the hall. No one else in the room where the hypnosis was conducted could hear anything from the math conference.

Clinical hypnosis has been able to solve many personal problems by what sounds like a sort of a "past-life regression." Clinicians who use this technique claim a high degree of success in only a few sessions. What does not work is to tell the subject that he or she is "crazy" and it is "all in your head" and that their experiences are not "real."

Another interesting phenomenon is "blindsight" in which clinically blind people seem to have some access to a type of "vision" in that they can have visual experiences that do not enter the consciousness through the physical eyes.

I agree that too many scientists have closed views about what they cannot explain, but isn't the essence of science to try to understand what we observe by whatever means we can use? Science seeks to expand our knowledge and push the boundaries out to create new fields of inquiry. The scientific method does not preclude the study of  phenomena relating to consciousness. 

Someone, I forget who, said that tomorrow's technology looks like magic today.

Thank you for your answer.

I totally agree. I did some hypnotic experiments. I could make person speak language used in old Atlantis or another person to talk in latin about flowers on the garden because he remebered, that he was a drogist in "previous life" in Vienna. My observationis with hypnotic experiments are similar.  I run now some experiments with astral traveling OBE with some people to read things/ get information in a distant room of other person in a different part of Prague city. Traveling with consciousness with different than material body with material senses needs to be scientifically examined.

But we will need scientists with astral senses developed in order to conducts experiments with repeatability and verification by other scientists.

Hypnosis is very good tool for connecting realities and scope of perception and awareness for sure.

Thank you for posting this.

"Traveling with consciousness with different than material body with material senses needs to be scientifically examined."

These experiments are already in progress and have been for a long time. There are many reasons why the experiments are not discussed. First, the results are hard to explain in human language. Second, people think subjects are crazy if they mention this and think that it is not science. Third, in some countries subjects and researchers can would be persecuted for even attempting to study this. Fourth, in some cases when subjects talk about what the see, the experiences have been known to stop, for reasons that have yet to be explained.

"But we will need scientists with astral senses developed in order to conducts experiments with repeatability and verification by other scientists."

Scientists themselves (ourselves) will find that the best body in which to study this is the "astral body" for lack of a better term in English. It does not relate to physical stars, but rather, experience that a person has when immediately out of the physical body. When we dream during sleep, we act out our dreams in a body. This body is the astral body. When a person has OBE or NDE, the body in which these experiences occur is the astral body. Scientists who can access this state of consciousness at will report repeatability. Those who did not know each other, from different eras, cultures. and locations, report the same observations.

Just because it is hard to study this does not mean that it is not worth the effort. This may be one of the most significant areas of study known to humans. How else can we understand the connection between science and the spiritual world?

There was a time when we thought that the sun revolved around the earth. This made the equations of motion complicated and difficult. However, when the assumption changed to the earth revolving around the sun, the equations became more tractable and easy to understand. The simplest explanation is often the best one.

Proofs in mathematics are sometimes achieved by assuming that the premise is not true then proceeding to a contradiction. Similarly, if one assumes that reincarnation does not exist, we have a very hard time explaining how anyone could speak a language during hypnosis that they never studied in the normal waking state of the current lifetime. If one assumes that it does exist and experiments are conducted to probe it, more and more information becomes available regarding the consistency of experiences. If something is not true and one subjects it to strict scientific scrutiny, it should fall apart and repeatability should not be observed. This is not what we find. 

Exactly my point.

So we need a science that does not refuse evident findings just because our material platform of material senses and material body is a limit to most people. For examining cells, we need microscope and for examining NDE, OBE, we need skilled scientists with perfect inner ruling with developing skills being able to use the "softer" bodies like dream/astral body or mental body.

We have lack of technology that connects through material and astral for example, therefore wee need to use the "inner" of all scientists.

I read about laterna magica and ability to take pictures, but such an astral camera principle is not well known to me, so I much more rely on people's experience.

The translation to our language and earth timespace is difficoult as time axis works differently and the linearity of cause and effect and time seems to vary bit differently.

The worst scientific ilness is that many unskilled scientists in this field use earth patterns for evaluating these things and they do not have enough scientific moral to stay independent and look as just an observer without attachments to the observed issue.

I observed that mental states vary so quickly in average head of human that the tool we use for examination is changing continuously under our hands.

This makes little bit more trouble in repeatability of the experiments, so the repeatibility also varies. But often wrong implication is that if does not happen everytime and always, it means that it's not "true".

Therefore I suggest to do findings based on soft bodies observation and then find some compatible scientific experiment design that will fit also to everyone who is attached to only material.

Your points describing the reason why people keep quiet about these research topics - I totally agree.

I hope that this section will welcome at least some people who will vote up or add some relevant independant observations...

Once scientists get skilled enough, I am sure that we will notice more details like difference in principal between observer bodies in other realities.

If we consider so much possibilities for our consciousness, I think that lots of scientists just do not see the complexity of all possibilities of consciousness and totaly miss all the beings having consciousness without need to have a body or physical brain.

Do you do some current related research? 

Hello Radim,

It is refreshing to know a scientist who has an insight into this topic.

One reason I left out of why few discuss this subject is that some who have become quite advanced in this area have asked us not to do so. Out of respect for those whose achievements far exceed mine, I do not go into detail about some aspects of my own research.

However, I can share analogies with physical chemistry.

1. Critical temperature. We all have the notion of what we think is a liquid and what a gas is. However, the critical point is defined by the temperature and pressure at which the interface between them vanishes, and the substance cannot be classified as either "liquid" or "gas." It is simply a dense fluid. Our simplistic definitions fall apart if conditions differ markedly from those normally experienced. In this analogy, temperature is the analogue of experiences [E] of different states of consciousness; science [S] is the analogue of liquid; and the underlying truth behind religions [R] is the analogue of gas. At low E, a condition that pertains to those who have not had any experiences of higher states of consciousness beyond dreams and the normal waking state, the distinction between science and religion is clear and well defined, just like the interface between liquid and gas, especially if one considers only the ritual-and-ceremony aspect of religion, which is quite superficial. At high E, the R begins to resemble S more and more, and finally, the interface between the two vanishes. At this point, the result is a single field of inquiry, which includes the goals of both S and R but is really neither. Recall that the word "religion," comes from the Latin, re-legare, to re-connect. The goal of religion is to reconnect with our origin. The ultimate goal of science is to understand and know all that can be known in a systematic way, presumably, which includes a complete understanding of our origin.

That two subjects should coalesce into a single one is not a new concept. It's just a matter of identify the relevant common ground. For example, the fields of physics and chemistry come together at the molecular level. Some of the work that is done is physics departments in Europe takes place in chemistry departments in the US. Seeing the connection between chemistry and physics became easier as theory, experiments, and technology advanced.

2. Chemical analysis - separation of components. At low temperature, an NaCl and H2O solution looks like clear water and the components cannot be separated without subjecting the solution to a process. We all know that the NaCl and the H2O are different components of the solution because we know how to separate them. If T is raised to the boiling point, a phase transition occurs. The water boils off and the salt remains. What appears to be a single entity is shown to be two separate entities at the appropriate T. Similarly, at the appropriate E levels, the distinctions between physical body, astral body, mind, and consciousness become evident. at the the physical level, that these four entities are different is not at all obvious. This is what confuses people into thinking that mind and consciousness are the same, or at least inseparable. At the physical level, they are all inseparable, just like the salt and water solution at room temperature. 

However, as E increases a number of phase transitions occurs. The first transition, like a boiling point, occurs when E gets high enough to effect the separation of the astral body and everything it covers from the physical body. This is the easiest to understand because the astral level is the next one up from the physical and we know of NDE and OBE, etc. The second transition, at a higher yet E level, occurs when the astral body separates from mind and consciousness. Only at that point one can know that the astral body is a separate entity from mind and consciousness. It is not readily apparent that these are different before separation. Increasing the level of E yet higher, we come to the next phase transition, namely to separate out mind from consciousness. This occurs at the boundary that defines the extent of universal mind. It is very difficult for us, at the physical level, to understand how consciousness could exist apart from mind until we experience a graphic demonstration of their separation - a higher level of E. Only then can we know for sure that mind is different from consciousness. It is impossible to know it invoking only the physical level.

This is not the only example where entities that we thought were inseparable have become separated. For example, when atoms were first discovered, they were named as such because no one thought they could be further subdivided. Then came the modern theory of the atom, which revealed the components of electrons, protons and neutrons. Before physicists studied these components, we did not understand how particles could be further subdivided until theories of subatomic particles were developed. Now we have up, down, and strange quarks, as well as properties named "beauty" and "truth." to describe components of electrons, protons, and neutrons. There was even a discussion of what some have called the "God" particle, which is supposed to give rise to mass. Science is approaching religion in ways that could not even be imagined a century ago. Moreover, it is doing so in a natural manner, not forced or contorted.

Similarly, stripping off the superficial dogmas, rituals, and ceremonies from multiple religions, we find a striking commonality among the world's religions. It seems to me that ignoring something that has been studied for thousands of years is not a good strategy or approach to a comprehensive understanding of truth.

The words "up," 'down," "strange," "beauty," and "truth" are names that we use to describe what we find regardless of whether we study science, religion, or their underlying unity.

I agree.

Yes there are states of consciousness where mind does not work. It's just consciousness with some kind of being aware or some other kind of perception. Mind is very earth kind of tool based too much on this timespace continuum in matter connected with brain functionality on earth. Because mind operates in duality in terms of observer and observed objec, we can agree that finding the absolute truth using mind as a tool seems to be impossible because of relative reasoning system and Gödel's theorem implications.

I can see a littlebit of Alchemist in you even though people now tent to be just chemists. Alchemy used to be very spiritual and connected with the inner consciousness and the consciousness was part of the alchemical operations.

I believe that the time is now mature to scientifically collaborate on ways and methods how to bring knowledge aboud hidden holy sciences to moraly and otherwise ready scientists, that truly wish to see how the things are beyond the scope of current observation possibilities of most unaware ones.

Your point about astral body and independence on consciousness and mind is interresting. I do not have that much experience in this, but as far as I know it is possible.

If we would like to generalize, than we use our consciousness mostly just patially focused on the objects of our interrest. If we are mostly trained on matter than rest is skipped from our awareness. Those people who practice for example a lot of meditations with observing inner and out of body experiences much more than the outer world matter stuff, those people have ability to have the consciousness attached to other types of existence. Most people need prop for the consciousness. Some objects of matter some other things.

If pure universal consciousness without any prop/support in terms of no needed object no longer required and consciousness can be enhanced and boosted with expansion to universal consciousness, I am convinced that this type of consciousness should be used as a base for scientists for doing reliable scientific research with the ability to observe all what needed from this point of view like old ancient sages/wise men could.

I welcome anyone else who understand what we discuss to join eventually with his observations or just vote up.

I agree also that too many things happen without us to notice, we are unaware and many things switched to subconsciousness so we are no longer that much being awake.

Your point about E and R from perspective with low E it looks like different from R, and from high E it looks quite near to R with some littlebit different approach or perception but going to the same origin point.

I must admit that I can see that much closer among all religions between them where the truth origin seems to be one for all of them. S does not have that much advantage with spirit and it must go with logner way through outer world, although very slow, there is possible to see advaning in progressing on the path towards the origin as well littlebit.

You are pointing an essence of both or the substance of all a bit. That is good. When one cathces the essence of the whole in terms of scientist or within science and its tools we will have a scientist with insight.

I can see a strange hole in the science that does not bother anyone.

Thats the subjective temporarity of the matter for all who have consciousness and body. The temporarity and relativity within mind or axiom/sentence/definition systém is so evident but most people don't care. They define systém in vakuum and don't care that the whole cannot be proved within itself at all.

if other scientists get more experiences with other states of consciousness, we will have better view on all the reality.

Hello Radim,

I fully agree. So many points to explore, and so little time!

I would like to comment on one observation:

"I can see a strange hole in the science that does not bother anyone."

As you know, history repeats itself. This is not the only "hole" in science that we have encountered. Symmetry is a very powerful tool to identify holes, anomalies, or simply gaps in our understanding. For example, Maxwell's equations show a gap where the magnetic monopoles should be, if they existed. We have math paradoxes also.

It does not seen to bother anyone because of the assumption that we cannot know how to explain strange holes in science using tools that we commonly have available. It is a way mentally "to sweep it under the rug" and not deal with the difficult questions without thinking that perhaps a different approach is needed.

"The temporarity and relativity within mind or axiom/sentence/definition systém is so evident but most people don't care. They define systém in vakuum and don't care that the whole cannot be proved within itself at all."

Yes, this is a good observation. My reaction to this is that they don't care because they don't know what to do about it without resorting to answering (or even asking) the question, "What is the origin of all the physical matter, energy, mind, and consciousness in the universe?" It is true and undeniable that we cannot pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, meaning that you cannot use axiom X = Y to prove that X = Y. It is necessary to refer to other information about X and Y to know why X = Y.

Perhaps the most difficult question in science and philosophy is, "What is the purpose of the universe itself?" Why is all of "this" here? My understanding of this point is that it is something we cannot know in the normal waking state using. This is the question that we all sweep under the rug, not realizing that the rug also has a trap door under it. Could the trap door be the entrance to a higher level of consciousness? Perhaps the origin question can be answered at a higher level of consciousness. More likely, at higher levels, that the importance of the question may vanish. Other, more fundamental questions that we are not in a position to articulate now may become more important.

"if other scientists get more experiences with other states of consciousness, we will have better view on all the reality."

This is among the most insightful things I have read on ResearchGate. Each state of consciousness seems to be real until we experience a higher state. Then, in retrospect, the lower state seems as though it were a dream. This is the observation that has given rise to my definition of reality: Reality is a label that we affix to the highest state of consciousness that we are capable of achieving. Any definition of reality that does not include some reference to a state of consciousness is, in my estimation, flawed.

I share your hope that like-minded scientists will contribute to this thread.

Best,

Marion

I am sure that there are more people doing research of states of consciousness.

I am now investigating with other two people best approaches, what to use to read from astral OBE state of things in another places in matter with connection to density of astral OBE close to matter.

Do you know about serious studies based on this?

 Hello Radim,

It is good that you are researching this.

I am not sure what you mean by "density of astral OBE close to matter" but I believe that OBE will start with the astral. Few OBE progress to the causal state, which is the next one after astral. In that sense, the astral OBE will be densest close to matter. 

I am not an expert in this kind of research but find it very interesting. Here is a reference that might be helpful. Perhaps you have seen it:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/out-of-body/charles-tart.html

I am not prety sure if there is some better term for this in english language, but the experiences are that sometimes when subject appears in OBE having the astral body, the ability to fly/walk through walls, etc. differs, lets assume this axix based on the "density". The more the density limits to earth material, the worse the ability of the astral body is to move through material objects and it makes a mud unpleasant fealing to a person when for example putting astral hand through wall. We would like to investigate what are the limits of this axis and how is it connected with energy needed to preform such tasks.

There are also different axis like time-stretch behaviour that implies in mental print of objects based on some time period. The time scale itself seems to be prety non linear and very much different at all.

We are now upto finding the best comfortable ways on coding information between material matter and astral based on experimental approach.

Thank you for the link.

This is a unique approach to an experience associated with OBE that I had not realized occurred in degrees. Therefore, I would not have thought to explore the "density axis" for lack of a better term. I always thought it was all or nothing. The discomfort associated with the experience of density while in OBE could be a feeling that the action "should not be able to occur in the material world." The challenge is to develop a way to measure or at least to gauge the position of a subject's experience on the "density axis." If this could be done with any degree of reliability, a researcher could attempt to correlate the "density index" to other factors to support an hypothesis.

For example, where a subject's experiences are located on this axis could be an indication of the subject's ability to have and remember lucid dreams, in which the subject is aware of the dream state. One indicator of when a lucid dream is in progress is the observation of familiar objects located in the wrong places. Another indicator is what the subject does about them. A couch, for example, may block the doorway from the living room to the bedroom. In the normal waking state, this is not likely to occur, so if it is observed in a dream, it indicates that the situation is a dream and not the normal waking state. One indicator of where the subject stands on the density axis, could be how to enter one room from the other. If the subject climbs over the couch to get to the next room, it is an indication of an experience of high density. If, however, the subject walks into the next room as though the couch were not blocking the doorway, it is an indication of an experience of low density or even zero density.

An experience of a low or zero-density event could be a trigger to a lucid dream. The difficulty here is finding a way to define and measure the variable along this axis.

Density is an interesting concept. We feel an object is "dense" because the electrostatic forces in the material repel the electrons in our bodies. In the normal waking state, we cannot put our hands through walls or desks because of the Pauli exclusion principle. However, if we were to consider the total volume of nucleons and electrons in the material we realize that what we think is "dense" is mostly empty space. Neutron stars may have very small dimensions relative to their mass because the gravitational force has broken down the material's electronic-orbital structure so that the electrons no longer can repel another object. A few cubic cm can way tons. I'm not sure of the exact density of neutron stars but it is very different from any density humans can experience directly. Already, even without invoking the concept of states of consciousness we can see that our concept of a "dense" object begins to break down in reference frames that are far removed from that of our everyday experience.

The non-linearity of time perception is another characteristic of experiences in higher states of consciousness. The perception of time depends on the reference frame even without invoking states of consciousness. For example, relativistic time dilation and simultaneity at speeds approaching the speed of light challenge our notion of time perception, which depends on the reference frame, all because the speed of light is constant.

Time dilation and different experiences of simultaneity would have seemed like science fiction to the generation prior to the elucidation of Einstein's theory of special relativity. Even today, students who study special relativity have been known to express a sense of awe and wonder that things in the material world are not what they seem to be.

Good luck with this research. I am interested in what you are doing.

The difference between astral OBE and lucid dreams seems to be quite well detectable for those who practice both. 

I spoted that the much bigger problem for practical exploration based on free will is to learn to program intention well because the freedom of free will is different especially in OBE and it can be somehow slightly more like automated reactions. The plans for the trips and intention must be very well prepared.

I am not very sure how the density is related to the speed and electron distances and internuclear distances. I will need more subjects for studying this, because in Materialization and dematerialization should be theoretically based on Bardon's teaching possible if one is skilled enough with lots of energy available while in OBE.

We currently have problems with limits of energy during the OBE travels, so the traveling either finishes with drop of memory about that or it vanishes into a lucid or normal dream or it ends in HARD emotionally very unpleseant immediate return to the physical body.

The states of consciousness are quite different from earth ones. Here if you look left, you know that there is a sofa, if you look again it is still there. This consistency must be very much taken care of while in OBE, because some things are there different even in terms of space and propositions.

Attributes that could be actually used to study are:

Physical measurements of the body while in OBE (For example hard beat speed, EEG etc.) I have one EEG neuroheadset so maybe I will borrow it to the proband and we can record something later on, but I am not skilled in reading it...

The inner ones examples:

Number of spys/scouts found represented by things that should not evidently be there. - This means that for example someone is in OBE, he look at his table at home while in OBE and there is for example elevator button on the table which never in time back was there and it is not evidently a mental stamp/print of anyone living there. In some cases while searching for scouts/spy like that one can "catch" him and follow him to the sphere origin where the spy came from and took this mask to mask himself there... So for example number and origin of spy finings.

Another offten very much considered issues are brain interpretation based on earth knowledges and representations that are used for translation of OBE experiences. If there is something in OBE for what the tranlator into brain does not find an experience from senses to fit in, there start to be information that seem not to fit and this makes them to be viewed as illogical or hard adaptable to earth material interpretation.

Another visual aspect can be viewable distance - sometimes there is a "fog" after some distance...

Another is how much energy one have to travel in OBE.

Another is how much energy was borrowed from other entity, sometimes other entity calls the one in OBE and foreighners energy for distance travelling is used...

Density and timeframe - things can be spoted based on current or different time or even agregated for example timeprint of 40 years mixed, etc...

Emotial states spoted while in OBE.

One of critical attributes is ability to control mind and have it in order.

You mentioned also the awareness of that it is OBE, dream or current reality. This can be serious problem for some people. So yes there are tricks like trying to blink with eyes and check how it is in regular periods to make detection based on this for example...

How electricity on earth, - for example near railway line influences the energy in astral OBE and abilities to travel more easily around...

Writing ability of the memory of what happened while in OBE after one is back in material body. And also how long the memory stayes - this is much harder in case of some dreams or visions.

I am not sure if any method like later hypnosis with regression to OBE could be use to have detailed possibility to look for details like if it was recorded on tape...

There should be clear classification of what is what anyway.

I currently use NDE, OBE and additionaly dreams or lucid dreams.

OBE could be mental or astral based on Bardons differentiation based on whether one travels with astral (soul) or "mental" (spirit) body.

The differentiation and classification for more elegant scientific exploration will be clear once more people are capable of describing the smallest details and differences based on shared same experiences.

One of the most important attributes that should be measured is watchfulness/alertness/being awake or aware of all that is happening.

----

I did personally one experiment with lucid dream like you described. I was in the dream walking on a small road, maybe I was driving a car, but there are small water corridors across the road, because it is a mud road so the water must be cathed to sides of the road because it is steep. I spotted that the bumpiness is ridiculously big.

This was my catch of being able to enter a lucid dream to be fully aware and conscious about it is a dream and I am consciously dreaming, I started to do analysis of the "fabric" from which the reality in the dream was represented. Anything I put my concentration on could be analyzed to any detail even like under the magnifying tool without the need to have it. The projection was perfect and emotionally more intensive than in this reality. But my ability to stay conscious out of the dream stream did not take very long. I work much more with other people who have better skills while slowly also learning some things...

I must admit that we should thank to Researchgate for having chance to be in toutch on this topics, there are not many people having deep experiences in these areas of research.

Thank you for your feedback.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311715924_Near-Death_Cases_Desegregating_Non-LocalityDisembodiment_via_Quantum_Mediated_Consciousness_An_Extended_Version_of_the_Cell-Soul_Pathway

Article Near-Death Cases Desegregating Non-Locality/Disembodiment vi...

You're project looks interesting and there are many people working on consciousness. I read the abstract to your conference paper. Am I correct in saying that you found that people were able to predict in advance  ' something 'better than chance. Not sure what the 'something' was. But they should not have been able to. Well this kind of finding has been found with random number generators. Also Rupert Sheldrake has shown that people can guess when they are being stared at a greater than chance rate. His experiments were conducted in a controlled scientific way. You may be interested in Sam Parnia's work. He is studying nde. He is a cardiologist. Many cardiologists are. I think that a more inclusive philosophy than materialism is necessary to understand many anomalies in today's science. I also think that in order to understand reality we need to understand near-death experiences so the physicists should be studying nde. 

You ou might be interested in reading the work of Francesca (I may have got that wrong) Varela. He developed a technique for studying Consciousness. 

As far as mathematically modelling consciousness I think we need to have a complete theory of reality I.e. Quantum gravity before we do so and I don't think we will get that without understanding nde

Hi Anne Ross.

Thank you very much for your valuable tips.

Radim