Thomas Campbell -- What is Reality?

[Tom From Hong Kong]

Recently Thomas Campbell, a theoretical physicist who currently works at NASA and who was one of the co-founders of the Monroe Institute, gave a lecture in which he outlined his theories surrounding what is "reality". While Campbell has 'gone out of body' an untold number of times, and while these experiences have fed into his views of what 'reality' is, he approaches the subject from scientific perspective, and is far from a "New Ager". This discussion, which is in 13 parts (the first is pasted below), ties in modern advanced physics as advanced by reputable scientists and theoreticians, including the fact that our reality very well may be digital in nature. There is also a significant amount of discussion about quantum theory as applied on the macro scale.

I post this because UFOs, cryptozoology, high strangeness, ghosts, multidimensional beings, tricksters, etc., all need to occur within our 'larger reality system'. Campbell's theories strike me as coming closer to the truth than many others -- certainly he is putting forth a perspective which causes us to take a step forward and think. In short, Campbell believes this reality system has been created as a venue for us to evolve, or as he states it, 'lower our entropy'. Note that this doesn't mean everything that happens to us is good as we perceive it, or that bad things don't happen to good people. The question which he unfortunately doesn't address directly is how the paranormal helps us evolve, or whether the paranormal merely represents imperfections in the large system (who is to say it is perfect?).



[On YouTube, pull up "Thomas Campbell - Keynote Speech at The Monroe Institute"]


"A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe,' a part limited in space and time. He experiences himself, his thought and feeling, as something separated from the rest -- a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and whole nature in this beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security."

Albert Einstein, Quantum Reality, Beyond the New Physics

 

[trainedobserver]

I think Campbell would be an excellent guest for the para-cast. I've read the first volume of his MBT trilogy. One of the things that gets me is that if the OBE business were true it would be easy enough to prove by a simple demonstration of describing something in an adjoining room, etc., etc. To my knowledge this has not been demonstrated, recorded, or presented as evidence for the ability to leave your body. You have to wonder why.

 

[tyder001]

I think Campbell would be an excellent guest for the para-cast. I've read the first volume of his MBT trilogy. One of the things that gets me is that if the OBE business were true it would be easy enough to prove by a simple demonstration of describing something in an adjoining room, etc., etc. To my knowledge this has not been demonstrated, recorded, or presented as evidence for the ability to leave your body. You have to wonder why.

According to Ingo Swann this has been done. An out of print book from the ninties describes some of his work in Remote Viewing. However, I have to be honest here. I am interested in it and it may or may not be true. But, it is one of those things I'd have to expreience for myself to really beleive. I know there are times when I come across as a wide eyed believer. However, having an interest in u.f.o.'s and out of body experiencenes and life after death is not the same as acutally believing or not believing. I have my own thoughts on these subjects. But, I don't "know" and that may be true until the day I die. Unless, of course I see somthing that convinces me. I'm not an athiest but I do consider myself to be a "skeptic" in the truest sense.

 

[trainedobserver]

According to Ingo Swann this has been done.

I've read Swann's book Penetration if that is what you're referring to and I don't recall that (OBEs) being in there but its been a while. For that matter Campbell claims this has been done. But he, like Ingo, has no real evidence for it. If you could do this sort of thing (OBE) how hard would it be to set up an experiment that could be video-taped and observed by others? This would be a no-brainer for Randi's million dollar challenge. Campbell comes across as an intelligent and thoughtful guy but I cannot resolve the fact that he doesn't present some sort of "proof" of the abilities he claims to have. It really wouldn't take that much to design an experiment that would prove whether he can leave his body and move around observing things in the physical world.

 

[tyder001]

Yeah Penetration. Thanks. It was acually Remote Viewing and I "guess" that's different than O.B.E. but it seems very similar to me. But, as I said maybe if it happened to me I would be a true believer. As it is I'm interested but not convinced one way or the other.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

The people at the Monroe Institute apparently have tested the validity of OBEs amongst themselves plenty, although they may have not run a formal standardized study that has been published. I agree Campbell would be a good guest given his scientific orientation but the 'paranormal' nature of the Monroe Institute and OBEs.

Campbell has a significant amount of material on YouTube, including a presentation he did in London about two years ago.

 

[trainedobserver]

The people at the Monroe Institute apparently have tested the validity of OBEs amongst themselves plenty, although they may have not run a formal standardized study that has been published.

Until they do they are just another cult-like group that believes strange things. Tom Campbell makes some pretty outlandish claims. From what I understand he claims to have alternate lives in other realities where he holds down jobs and has relationships with the inhabitants and so forth while maintaining the one we know as Tom Campbell here. If I have that wrong someone please correct me but I've watched about everything this guy has out there and read one of his books and I think I have that right.

All it would take is a group of dispassionate observers to watch the fellow go into a trance in one room and describe the actions of someone or objects in another room that was under their observation. You do that several times with a variety of actions or objects set up in a double blind protocol and you'd have something. In a matter of hours you'd have all the funding you could ever want. Why hasn't that been done and published? I think we know the answer to that question.

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

All it would take is a group of dispassionate observers to watch the fellow go into a trance in one room and describe the actions of someone or objects in another room that was under their observation. You do that several times with a variety of actions or objects set up in a double blind protocol and you'd have something. In a matter of hours you'd have all the funding you could ever want. Why hasn't that been done and published? I think we know the answer to that question.

I think he responds frequently to questions on his internet chat forum, on the website My Big TOE. Why don't you drop him a line and ask him?

I could be wrong by he strikes me as one of the most credible people in this entire paranormal field.

 

[trainedobserver]

I think he responds frequently to questions on his internet chat forum, on the website My Big TOE. Why don't you drop him a line and ask him?

I could be wrong by he strikes me as one of the most credible people in this entire paranormal field.

I did that in 2008. Here is the answer I got, tell me if you think it is satisfactory:

Posted Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:41 pm under What's Next?>study citations

i didn't know where to put this but i wanted to ask where i can find the sources for a study claimed by Thomas Campbell where they had 2 sound proof booths and recorded the conversations and found out that it matched up perfectally or something along those lines - any other studies would be nice to have also

The original source will not be an easy find -- that data was recorded in the early to mid 70s (some 35 years ago) at the Monroe Institute. The Monroe Institute is still there (just Google them) -- hard to tell how good their record keeping has been -- but if they are like other small institutions, digging up a a set of two 35 year old cassette tape is hard enough, finding tape that old that is still readable is even more problematical.

Tom C

Couldn't the experiment be reproduced and recorded? What is going on today with you personally? I know you don't have anything to do with the Institute anymore but from what I gathered from listening to your lectures online you aren't exactly inactive. Is it all solo? Thanks for putting those lectures up.

RP

Yes, it is all solo. Yes experiments could be repeated.

Consciousness is personal and thus subjective. The only proof that carries any weight or is of any significance is what you can prove to yourself as you do your own experiments. There are well documented scientific studies of paranormal events by the hundreds and perfectly clear unambiguous individual paranormal experiences by the tens of millions. There is no point or value in doing paranormal things for people to watch or study -- it makes no difference to anyone's personal growth. It is more entertaining to watch a bear balance a ball on its nose while riding a unicycle -- and just as enlightening.

The "proof" that is so interesting to you is a red herring that leads nowhere valuable -- a distraction, and often used as an excuse for not evolving the quality of one's consciousness. Because the experience of consciousness is personal and thus subjective, the "proof" must lie within your own personal experience. Any experience of consciousness (i.e., somebody else's consciousness) coming from outside your own experience has no ability to change you in any significant way (to change the quality of your intent). If the change you seek is only intellectual, there are already hundreds of facts and studies available that will inform your intellect. If you refuse to accept any of them as “proof” because they conflict with your beliefs, then more facts will not fix that situation. Go watch the bear instead – it’s probably a better use of your time than trying to prove to your intellect that you live in an objective material reality rather than a virtual reality based upon the experience of consciousness. There is no intellectual proof – if you are seeking intellectual proof, you are looking for the end of the rainbow sticking into the ground somewhere. Proof must come from personal experience. As systems of information, experience and consciousness are non-objective and non-physical.

Tom

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

You can take that response either way . . . I agree, not the answer I would have given.

I have read Lynn McTaggart's Intention Experiment and am familiar with some of the studies to which Campbell alludes. Have you ever done a full scale survey? My impression is that many studies have statistically significant findings but do not yield results anywhere near 100%.

On a certain level, he appears to be saying that we each live in our own little universe.

 

[trainedobserver]

Take it either way? He is clearly saying that he is not willing to reproduce the experiments or provide any "proof" in the way of verifiable data.

I've tried to do it and I can't pull it off. I'm not saying it isn't possible, I'm just saying I can't do it. It would be nice if someone who claims that they can would simply provide what should be easily producible evidence. I think it says a lot that nothing of the sort exists.