In memoriam; an interview with Bill Paxton (on the flipside)

Berbet Bruno AP Cannes

For this one year anniversary of Bill Paxton’s passing, I’m putting up this excerpt of the upcoming book written with Jennifer Shaffer where we “interview” people no longer on the planet.

Since meeting Jennifer, we’ve been doing this kind of unusual research into the flipside; my questions are not related to getting people to “prove who they are” but skipping ahead to asking questions like “Who greeted you when you passed?  Is there anything you’d like me to pass on to your family and friends? Is there a specific piece of new information I can share that no one but your loved ones would know?”

Jennifer Shaffer

Jennifer Shaffer is a medium/intuitive who works with law enforcement agencies nationwide to help find missing persons. We did some extensive interview for “Hacking the Afterlife” but since my old friend Bill Paxton passed away last year, he’s been “showing up” at many of our conversations which are “moderated” by my friend Luana Anders (who passed in 1996.) (For details on how that came about, please check out “Flipside” “It’s a WonderfulAfterlife” or “Hacking the Afterlife.”)

Luana Anders in a Rockefeller Plaza mirror

For those not familiar with my work, I’m a film director who has written and/or directed 8 theatrical features.  I made a documentary (“Flipside” distributed by Gaia) about my journey into this research focusing on the work of Michael Newton.  I followed that up with comparing near death experiences with between life hypnosis accounts of the afterlife, and after that I began interviewing mediums about their process. (Those accounts will be in another book I’m working on as well.) I’ve been filming each of my conversations with Jennifer and people on the Flipside for two years now.

Bill wrote, directed, acted in films.

After Bill started showing up, I’ve reached out to his family and friends.  He had specific messages for me to pass along to them, and as I did with a previous couple of posts about my (and Bill’s) old friend Harry Dean Stanton (both starred in “Big Love”) Harry proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he was speaking to us from the flipside.  (The posts are here and are filled with verifiable details that neither Jennifer nor I could have known, but later found out to be accurate.)

Jennifer Shaffer
and yours truly

In these two following interviews with Bill, I neglected to tell either medium Jennifer Shaffer or Kimberly Babcock who he was. Not because I have any doubts about this process, but because I didn’t want his  fame to get in the way of our conversing.  (These transcripts have been edited for time and clarity.)

Rich: (Speaking to Luana Anders through Jennifer). We have a mutual friend who passed away recently, Luana, his name is Bill.

Jennifer: They just danced.

Who just danced?

Bill and Luana did a little tango thing. 

(Note: Bill met Luana before his career took off, he was going to star in my film “You Can’t Hurry Love” and helped me rewrite the script.  Luana was always a big fan of his work, so it’s not unusual for me to hear they met up on the Flipside.)

Does Bill want to talk to us?

He just showed me him filing his nails... (Like “yeah, what is it?” Bill and my relationship was always in the poking fun at each other in this realm.)

So he’s here?

He says he’s shampooing his hair... (getting ready.)

Tell us what it’s like over there

“It’s fun,” he says.  He says “I can fly”... and that he likes scaring people.

Who was the first person to greet you when you crossed over?

His dad.

(Note: Bill’s father did precede him in death, and as we’ll hear from Kim Babcock, he says the same thing to her.)

Was that a happy reunion?

He says it was shocking... because that meant that he had died.  He said “Yes at first, it was shocking, but then that subsided." At first he was startled, but it wasn’t scary,” he says. “It was like a recognition of both worlds;" he showed me them together. (Both sides).

Was this an “exit point” for you? Something that you planned to have happen? Was this the right or wrong time for your leaving the stage?

He’s saying it was the wrong time for his physical body, it was the right time for his soul.

(Note: “Exit points” are something that we’ve learned from these interviews. People say that we generally stay here to accomplish what we’ve set out to do, but “exit ramps” or “exit points” sometimes appear, and we wind up leaving earlier than we thought we would.)

You once talked about going to visit the Titanic. What was that like?

(Jennifer stops, makes a face, eyes wide.)  Is this the Billy that was in the movie Titanic? He showed me a picture of that guy who just passed. I’m confused.

Well, let’s ask him. Is that picture that Jennifer is seeing of a person, is that a picture of you? If it isn’t, give her a thumbs down.

He gave me a thumbs up. This is him? I saw him here, in the office when we met the other day...  I love Billy, I had no idea...

He and I met in London when he was making the film Aliens, my old friend Lori was pals with his then girlfriend, later wife Louise. We all went out for a pint, and when he laughed uproariously, I recognized the laugh from “Weird Science.” We had John Hughes in common, John went to my high school, I met him on set. Later I asked Bill to star in my first film You Can’t Hurry Love; it didn’t happen, but I used a song from his band Martini Ranch (no relation) to open the film. I hadn’t seen him in years before he passed.  Bill, take Jennifer down with you in that capsule when you went to see the Titanic.

(Staring into the distance, Jennifer shivers.) I got scared because of the water rushing (past) but then he grabbed my hand and he calmed my heart down. He’s taking me to a corner, he’s showing me the boat. If you had a blueprint of the boat we’re going to the farthest right corner of the Titanic... okay... (To Bill) Go slower. “You don’t have to hold your breath,” he just told me.

(Note: Bill had worked with Jim Cameron and when Jim took him to see the ship, he initially thought he would see it from the ship’s deck. But Jim put him in his bathysphere and together they made a number of trips to see the ship. Oddly enough, in April 2017, a few weeks after this interview, a “locket” from the Titanic was found on the ocean floor in a bag.)

Hole on the right side of the Titanic

Describe what you’re seeing and feeling.

I’m feeling a sense of peace. I’d be really scared to ever go into something like that. He’s taking me down to the right of the bow... that’s below on the bottom, in the front, and there’s a hole in the front – he showed me an explosion... an explosion that caused that hole.  

(Note: Jim Cameron has taken 33 trips to visit the ship.  National Geographic did an extensive survey of the wreck, and it does include a hole where she’s describing it. Knowing Jennifer as well as I do I’m confident she’s not referring to something that she’s seen, but something that she is “seeing.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118217/New-Titanic-images-doomed-ship-youve-seen-before.html)

They hit the iceberg on the right side.

I didn’t know that.

Okay, thanks Billy. Let’s move on to some other questions.

It’s funny I feel like I’m decompressing now.

Have you seen John Hughes since you got back?

(laughs) He’s really busy.

Anything you want to say to Jim Cameron?

“Thank you.”  He said it again, “Thank you.”

Anything more specific?

He said “He knows where it is.”

Where what is?

Something they were looking for? Jewelry?

I don’t know. I thought that was made up. Where is it Billy? Is he showing you a jewel?

He’s saying to be quiet.  He showed me you interrupting him... he says “I’m trying to talk.”

Sorry.

He’s showing me a future project with Jim... In June (2017). Might be a movie, something they talked about.

Is that something you were going to be involved with?

He’s showing me looking at papers, but I don’t know.

Well, I can’t call up Jim and ask him, but I think people are tuning into this form of speaking to the flipside more and more. So Billy, you know how to whisper in his ear.

“I know how to scare him,” he said.

Okay. That’s allowed. Scare him then. Let’s talk about more interesting stuff. You said your experience over there was that you can fly. Show her how you fly from one place to the next. How does that work?

He’s showing me (visually) before I can really process it. He’s going to all these corners really fast, then he showed me how many things are going on in the interim. Then he slowed it down super slow and showed me how things move here - but he’s going faster than that.

You mean like a super fast game of tag? And he slowed it down so you only see four or five touches?

Yes.

Describe what do we look like to you; how do you communicate to us?

He showed me the aerial view from above us, he showed me your head. He said “What works best is the eyes, as they’re the windows to the soul."

If you were going to pick some aspects of life on the planet that you might miss, or wish you could live again?

He showed me a pistol, chewing tobacco, horses...

He misses chewing tobacco?

No, he’s showing me like another lifetime.

Where was that?

In Texas. Near Austin. Feels like after the civil war... after 1879.

(Note: Bill goes on to describe in detail this former lifetime, details of which I was able to verify through research.  It involved a small group of Mormon settlers who lived near Austin, and he was showing her a lifetime where he was the leader of that group.)

So Bill any of your old girlfriends I need to reach out to tell them you said hello?

“I had no old girlfriends. I only had eyes for my wife.”

That was just a test buddy.

He’s laughing.

What can we ask you that an average person might ask? What’s your day like? Do you sleep?

There’s no sleeping there.

(Note: For a detailed description of "what it's like" I refer you to "My Life After Life" by Galen Stoller. Galen wrote a book from that perspective, and I've seen letters from a woman who claimed that her husband reached out to her through a medium to tell her to get his book, as he "describes what it's like over here."  Galen wrote the foreword to "It's a Wonderful Afterlife" volume two from the flipside.) 

Do you have a place that you like to hang out?

He’s showing me on a white beach.

For relaxation?

Yeah. “To think.”

What do you think about?

How he wants his next life to be.

Tell us, what will it be? Any idea?

He says he wants the world to be a better place.

How can you help effect that?

He showed me someone like Elon Musk, someone who knows how to get things done or made, that can... (help the planet).  

So how do you create your white beach? How do you create objects over there?

He said it’s by using mathematics and science. He says he puts an equation together that gets him the right (visual or) taste of whatever you want to drink or experience. Whatever you’re looking for.

So when you want to experience a white beach it’s a mathematical equation?

It is, but you don’t have to take it to that extent. It just happens.

(Note: In Galen Stoller's book, he says that "creating a structure" requires focus and concentration, understanding how frequencies work, and being able to manipulate them.  Hence the math.)

Let me ask you about other realms.  I know that Jim Cameron said he had a vision of Pandora, the planet or Na'vi people that are in Avatar. What was that about?

He’s laughing. Says, “They were Martians.”

Do they exist in some other realm? I mean was his dream in high school related to seeing something that actually exists somewhere else, or was it created by his mind? Or do you know?

He said “Be patient.” He’s trying to show me. He showed me Africa. Did Jim Cameron’s father go to Africa? There’s something with an African influence for Jim Cameron – he showed me a mask, something with a mask, obviously we don’t see that in the movie, but it was the same recurring dream over and over again, it’s about helping the planet. He wanted to help the planet.

(Note: The Na'vi are reportedly loosely based on the Ashante tribe of the Ashante Region in central Ghana. "Their singing sounds much like the Na'vi singers from the soundtrack from James Cameron's "Avatar")

I know Jim had a dream about the Terminator while sitting in a pensione in Italy; he dreamed about the skeletal Terminator robot.

He gets those dreams about the future... I just got shown our friend Scott De Tamble (lightbetweenlives.com) Sometimes under hypnosis people can access the future.

But I’m asking does the planet from Avatar exist somewhere?

Yes.

In our universe or in another realm?

Bill is so funny. If I’m interpreting this correctly, he’s saying it does exist somewhere else, and when you’re able to link in, you can get the information from there to manifest itself here.  But more importantly, nature, the trees that exist on our planet have existed longer than any humans.  And what happens in the film, is happening here on our planet. For example, when we take down trees in the Amazon or in Africa we are cutting off the life support in other dimensions.

Okay.  Billy, is there anything you want me to pass along to your family and friends?

Reach out to them, he says.

I know his children are on social media, but I don’t want to be like a creepy uncle reaching out to them. I mean, who wants to hear from some dude who claims he’s talking to your loved one?

“Get over it,” he says.

Give me something to say that your friends and family would know comes from you.

When one of them has a dream about him, that’s him trying to get through. There are changes, or decisions being made, and he wants them to know whenever they ask him questions, he’s there trying to help out.

So your message is; “Listen?”

Bingo.

Should I tell them the Michael Newton method (that Jennifer and I heard in another interview with the Flipside) “Say the name of your loved one, either aloud or in your mind, ask them questions you don’t know the answer to, when you hear the answer before you can form the question you’ll know you’ve made a connection?”

Yes, but without mentioning Michael Newton. (laughs) Whatever it takes; it’s important. He says, "Thanks."  He showed me that Jim Cameron is thinking about doing a project about the afterlife. So if you talk to him, ask him about it.

I will. Thanks Billy.

Medium/Minister Kimberly Babcock

(Note: Some days later, I met with the medium KimberlyBabcock, who is both a medium and a minister from Ohio.  I filmed a long discussion that was freewheeling, and towards the end, I had the thought to mention Bill, who had passed only weeks prior. Conducted in a busy Weho restaurant, it's been edited for time and clarity.)

Richard: Can you bring my friend Bill forward?

Kimberly: “Bill has been waiting for you.”

Hi Bill. What do you want to say to your family or friends?

Was he not able to say goodbye before he passed?

That’s correct.

He’s showing me it must have been quick or there was no closure when he passed.

(Note: Bill was in the hospital for chest pains, reportedly, and a more complex operation was done which resulted in his passing.)

Well, this is a way of helping give some kind of closure; what would you like to say?

That’s it; that I have closure and that “I’m at peace.” He says that they still have that wound, because there was no closure before he passed because he didn’t get to say goodbye.

What does he look like to you?

I don’t see him at all. I sense him. Did he have issues with his chest? I’m feeling like his passing was very quick. He said “I’m sorry.”

To who?

To them (his family).

Okay. Here’s the thing, now this door is open we can have conversations and help them to access you more directly.

Was he on medication or something with medicine?

He was getting an operation, they were working on his heart.

I think it’s more than that; medicine was involved with his health and his passing. He’s showing me a pill bottle, as if they were giving him medicine. 

Okay. So now you’re back home – are you there with your soul group? Who greeted you when you crossed over?

His dad. I see the word “dad” written in the air.

(Note: Same answer to Jennifer’s question.)

Last time we were together was at screening of my film “Cannes Man.” I didn’t talk to you, but I heard your distinct laugh in the audience. How’d you like that film?

When you said "I didn’t talk to you" – he said, “I did talk to you.”

Yes, that's correct, when I called you up to invite you.

When you said “How’d you like the film?” He feels so much like, you and he wanted to do something similar or that you both did similar work – it seems like he saw himself in it.

(Note: Bill and I tried to work together on “You Can’t Hurry Love.”  When he made “A Simple Plan” he called to tell me “I finally got to work with Bridget Fonda” (who appeared in the film.) "Cannes Man" was about a hapless delivery boy who comes to the film festival, and just using hype turns into the “flavor of the moment.” Bill and I spent a few fun evenings in Cannes together over the years so that makes sense he could have starred in it.)

He should have been in "Cannes Man."

He feels like it (the story) represents him...

(Note: Bill stopped by to see his agent Brian Swardstrom's Oscar nominated film "Just Call Me By My Name" on his way to Cannes.  That film is dedicated to Bill.)

Billy I just wanted to open this door, I thought this would be a fun chance to say hi.

He says... It’s funny it feels like he’s such a smart aleck! He says, “You always have a chance to say hi, you don’t need her.” He’s very funny.

I’m just seeing if I can help you in some way to connect with your loved ones, and don’t hesitate to stop by.  Let me ask, so were you impressed when we spoke to Jesus a few moments ago?

(Note: Just prior to my asking questions, I asked Kimberly about her visions where she has seen Jesus during some of her mediumship sessions, and we spoke about her journey to this work.  I segued from “talking to Jesus” to asking him to bring forward “my pal Bill.”)

He’s razzing you. He says... um, he’s like “Jesus and I, we go way back, what are you talking about?” He’s like “Where are you?” He’s kind of beating you up.

(Note: She could not possibly know that’s our relationship.  Glad to hear he’s still enjoying the mutual razzing.)

So Billy, when you’re looking at us in this restaurant in West Hollywood, what do you see?

He looks at a watch, he’s like looking at his watch...  did he smoke?

I don’t remember. He may have.

It’s like he’s got a cigar, something bigger than a cigarette.

Tell him he’s very missed.

He feels like the kind of guy (well loved); it’s like “He knows no stranger,” that kind of person.

That’s accurate. So what’s the biggest thing you learned passing over?

That there is no time, there is no death. He didn’t realize how much fear he had until he died, until he came here. “There is no fear; there is no time.”

Did you have your past life review already?

He says “A long time ago.”

(Note: A “past life review” is something that’s common among people who have near death experiences, but it’s also in the reports from people under deep hypnosis. I’ve filmed 45 sessions, done 5 myself and examined thousands from Dr. Helen Wambach and Michael Newton.  People talk about “seeing their council” and then having a review of all the good or bad things they’ve done in their lifetime.)

Any of the highlights... (laughs) or low lights you want to share? Anything you were surprised to see?

(aside) Wow, that’s an interesting perspective. He says that he realizes... he says... I’ll just say it verbatim as if I’m him; “I’ll say this. I realize the fear that I carried within myself planted fear in others and for that I shed remorse. I acknowledge my remorse and I know I have to heal in that way.” He’s showing (me) the collateral damage he did, he’s giving an example; here’s an example; “If we walk around (during our lifetime) saying “I’m so worried,” like “I’m so worried about my heart (or other fears) because then we believe in our fears.” And it created this collateral damage. He didn’t realize how much he did that. Like he “Just worried about stuff that was minute,” he says.

So how’d you like your memorial service?

He stood up and did a salute.

Some of your friends have written some wonderful tributes on Facebook. Are you aware of them?

No, it feels no connection. He says to tell you that he can connect emotionally (directly) to his friends, like when it goes to (appearing on) social media it has an emotional imprint; but it’s almost invisible to them (on the flipside).”

Is there any one thing you want me to tell you friends and fans?

He’s funny. I really like his personality; he’s one of those people who’s going to give you a little bit... just enough to make you want more. When you said, “Is there anything you want me to tell your friends and family?” He literally said “I can fly.” (laughs) He’s playing the song “I can fly, I can fly”... (The Peter Pan version). He’s laughing because it’s like, “I know they want more... but this is what I’ll give them: I can fly.”

(Note: This is the same thing he said to Jennifer Shaffer.)

Can you tell Kim your last name?

Kimberly laughs. (to Bill: “Why?” She then gestures with a “zipped lip.”) That’s what he did. I said “Are you sure?” He’s checking his pockets (as if looking for a wallet.)  He said “Nope.” He zipped his lip and then pointed to you.

 

I have other friends named Billy who are on the other side, just to be sure, tell her which one of my Billy’s is this? (trying to trick him into revealing it to her)

He said, “Whichever one had the heart issues.” Now he’s pulled his energy back.

(Note: He's the only one who had heart issues.)

We ended the interview, and then moments later Kim’s father called from Ohio to see how she was doing on her trip out West. She asked him what he was doing and she later told me;  “My father told me he just had this desire to check in on me. He was watching this old film called “Twister.” 

At that point I told her who Bill Paxton was, and how he was the star of that film.  She wasn't "that familiar" with his work, she said she was surprised, but not as much as I was at the clever way he revealed his identity. 

I mean “What are the odds that I would be chatting with him and her dad would call to say he was watching his film?”  

All I can say is “Well played Bill.  Well played.”

Excerpts from the upcoming book with Richard Martini and Jennifer Shaffer interviewing people on the Flipside.

Perfect pitch, driverless cars and a cure for Parkinsons

Was listening to Harry Shearer's Sunday show this morning interviewing Gary Marcus.  ("Interview with NYU Professor of Psychology and Neural Science, Gary Marcus on artificial intelligence." March 4th, 2018)

From Richard Davidson's work on Meditation
how it can "cure or alleviate depression."

Harry was talking to NYU professor Gary Marcus about brain functions, about "preprogrammed" information that occurs in certain animals (the author used the octopus as an example of a creature that is born with a vast amount of apriori knowledge) and how artificial intelligence advocates and creators debate whether or not artificial intelligence machines (driverless cars) should be built with a certain amount of "baggage" or prior knowledge, and if they should be a clean slate to learn "new information."  He referred to his article in the New Yorker "Moral Machines."

He spoke of how the simple worm was dissected decades ago, and yet science has not been able to duplicate its functions in a machine. (Gary's article on "Deep Learning" is here)

Further, there was an article in nature.com about how light waves (and sound waves) may be a cure for a variety of brain disorders, including Alzheimer's and Parkinsons. A recent study showed promising long term benefits for people who spent an hour a day looking at pulsating lights or listening to sounds.

But let's start with perfect pitch, shall we?

Gary Marcus Ph.D said "There are more cases of perfect pitch in China which may be a genetic or a cultural phenomenon."  Harry pointed out that he was "born with perfect pitch" and it wasn't a skill he acquired.  They discussed where "talent comes from" - and the author pointed out that some bands can play for "a thousand hours" and never attain the musical abilities of the Beatles for example. But Harry wanted to know "How is it that I was born with perfect pitch?"

(I've met Harry a couple of times over the years. We did a Laverne and Shirley with Harry Dean Stanton (! I was the pizza delivery guy) and we met in New Orleans during the Jazz fest, and I reviewed his wife's music when I wrote for Variety)

I can tell you Harry.

With Jennifer Shaffer Medium and George Noory
Coast to Coast radio

But you have to get a cup of coffee, sit back in your chair, and go down this rabbit hole with me.  I can show you how to cure Parkinsons, help people with Alzheimers, define where perfect pitch comes from, and explain how driverless cars will never become morality machines.  I can explain all of that to you, but first you have to set something aside.

Ego. Vanity.  (Not yours, just the concepts.) They are two words that come to mind when we judge what we are about to hear or contemplate.  "Consider the source."  If one was to look at my background, look for my Ph.D for example, or check where my sources are, there going to resist coming into the hole with me. 

A life well lived! Or remembered well.
or well... remembered.

For the past ten years I have been filming people under deep hypnosis talking about the afterlife.  If there was a Ph.D in "Filming what people say about the afterlife while under deep hypnosis" I'd have that moniker.  I did graduate magna cum laude, I have written or directed 8 theatrical feature films, and written four best selling tomes on the topic (kindle best sellers) but none of that really matters.

Some scientists will (and have) argued that "hypnosis is not a valid tool of science" but they're wrong. Inaccurate. Mistaken. 

If we look at medical cases, for example, drugs are given in a test environment, and then answers are asked and those results become data.  The results must be consistent and reproducible.  That's a hallmark of science.  

Hallmark.  My grandfather Edward A Hayes French Legion of Honor
medal.  It exists somewhere, as it was stolen from my folks home.
But it's still a hallmark.

So what I'm about to tell you is both consistent and reproducible.  It doesn't matter who is telling this information to you, it matters what these people consistently say.  If they say the same things consistently, then one has to rule out how that could possibly be.  If they say the same things no matter who is asking the questions, or who is offering the answers; again, we'd have to rule out how that could possibly be. 

How could thousands of humans say the same things under hypnosis no matter who asks the questions or what the protocol is?

With medium Jennifer Shaffer and Newton trained
hypnotherapist Scott de Tamble (Lightbetweenlives.com)

I've examined the thousands of cases of Dr. Helen Wambach (Life Before Lives) and Michael Newton (Journey of Souls.)  I've filmed 45 people that I chose for their skepticism to do a "between life session" which lasts up to 6 hours.  I've done five of them myself. And the results are the essentially the same.  I expanded this research into near death experiencers.  I have transcribed sessions of people who've had a near death event and then used hypnosis to reaccess that information.  Further, I've interviewed these people while fully conscious and had them revisit the same information and gotten the same results as people who've never heard of "hypnotherapy."

How could that be?

It's because consciousness is both a medium and a mechanism.  Like light is both particle and wave, consciousness functions in the same manner.  It doesn't "spontaneously generate" the way that people used to think "water in the desert created fish."  Consciousness functions the same way that water does - in the sense that one can't kill a drop of water - they can change it, it can travel somewhere else, but every single drop of water that has ever been on the planet is still here. No drop of water has ever been destroyed, killed, or even harmed. It functions, is changed, then travels back "home" and then "reincarnates" again in our coffee.


Just like humans.

What the research shows is this: we come to the planet with about a third of our "conscious energy" (soul for lack of a better term) and two thirds of that energy is always "back home" where we "came from." (I use quotes because that's what people consistently say.  When asked "where do you want to go?" after remembering a previous lifetime, they inevitably say "home."  Not heaven, or hell, or planet Xenu, or Kolab or any of the other "places" that we associate with some "other place." They use the same word CONSISTENTLY.  We can argue what home is -no two people have the same idea of home - but the words they associate with home are consistent; "A place of non judgment" a "place of unconditional love" a place of "safety" "comfort" or "where our loved ones are."

Harry Dean Stanton
Whom I interviewed on the Flipside in
a previous post here.

Say hello to my little friends.

Unconditional love is the key.  They use that term consistently - but it's not a term we use on the planet consistently. It's not in beer ads, in literature, in entertainment, in stories... but we instantly know what it means.  It's a love that is not conditional.  We live in state of "conditional love" while we are here on the planet (for the most part) and only experience is between parents and children (sometimes) or between humans and animals (sometimes.)  But it's an experience we all know - and yet, everyone claims that's what we return to "after our life" or "before our life."

Further, when we talk about a third of our consciousness being here, that works out to two thirds of our consciousness being "back home" all the time.

What has this to do with perfect pitch?

If you've have a lot of lifetimes that are related to music, if your sense of frequency translation is honed over many lifetimes, or if you're consciousness just has an easier time of understanding frequency,  you're going to have "perfect pitch" (or be able to see, sense or hear other frequencies.  Perfect pitch can relate to a medium seeing or hearing things that aren't here, the same way a bee can see the ultraviolet light we can't see.  They have different frequency tuning built in.)

So Harry's brain has the ability to "hear" the frequency from notes (sound waves) that when they reach his ear and are translated into information in his brain, he knows what note is being played.  Not something he learned, but something he was "born with."

What Harry doesn't know is that he chose this lifetime.  Prior to even "coming to the planet" or incarnating, Harry got together with his pals (likely member of Spinal Tap) and discussed what kind of a lifetime he wanted to experience.  I've filmed a number of these "life planning sessions" (including my own) and reported them in "Flipside" "It's a Wonderful Afterlife" and "Hacking the Afterlife.")

His ability to understand frequency without having to learn it is related to his consciousness.  He chose a body and brain that could work with frequencies on a different level than other folks.

A musician or scientist?  Both it appears.

Now, what about artificial intelligence?  

It's not enough for me to say "there will never be a sentient machine until someone on the flipside decides that they want to have an existence on the planet as a sentient machine."  In other words, someone would have to "choose" a lifetime as a machine, and would be stuck doing all the boring things that machines do.  Since there's a myriad of experience we have here as humans, I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to do that.

But that's not to say that artificial intelligence is amoral - it's just to say that the "race to sentience" is a waste of time.  Can't exist. Sorry.  But again, it's not enough to say it - what people are looking for is how to make machines, or AI more "moral" - meaning being able to make the choice of "running into a tree" or "running into a bus full of children."  Humans make that choice - but what is it based on?  Is that choice based on the amount of engrams in a brain? Or social engineering?  Neither. (Again, sorry, it's just not in the data.)

What is in the data (and again, eyewitness reports that are consistent and reproducible are data) is that we choose to incarnate as animals that are called human.  That the human animal itself has a limited capacity for higher thinking, and its a tacit agreement between ourselves a conscious entities and the human animal.  We don't incarnate as other animals, because they have their own forms of the process - they too have realms and levels with regard to their incarnations, whether its as a flying animal, swimming animal, or one walking the earth.  It's technically possible for us to incarnate in such a manner - it's just relatively really really rare for us to do so, and we would have a compelling reason to do so that all our loved ones and guides would have to agree to.

I'm not arguing this point here; I'm reporting it.  This is not my theory, belief or philosophy - I'm just reporting what people consistently say about the process either while under deep hypnosis, or consciously about these events.

So how to make artificial intelligence more human?  Ask someone who is no longer on the planet for how to do that.  (It's what I've been doing the past two years, interviewing people (different people, different mediums) and comparing the answers to complex questions about the nature of reality. Sounds odd, and it is, but it's what I've focusing on.  Ask people no longer on the planet about how to make your machine function better.  I'm not kidding.  I can help you do that.

Finally; what's the cure for Parkinsons and Alzheimers?  Well, it's in this research as well. In Nature magazine they have an article showing how pulsing light (or sound) allows brain waves to function better, helps focus and memory, and in some cases, stops the shaking of Parkinsons.  




I've shown the same results in "It's a Wonderful Afterlife" where a person with severe Parkinsons did a between life hypnosis session and stopped shaking for the entire six hour session. (And I filmed it.  She's a private person, so she doesn't want the footage out there, but the transcription of the session, anonymous, is in the book).

Why did her Parkinsons stop during the session?  Because deep hypnosis (not the surface kind, or the quack like a duck kind) works with Theta waves.  It's the same waves that are being affected by the light or the low sounds used in this study.



"Nevertheless, there is clearly a growing excitement around treating neurological diseases using neuromodulation, rather than pharma-ceuticals. “There’s pretty good evidence that by changing neural-circuit activity we can get improvements in Parkinson’s, chronic pain, obsessive–compulsive disorder and depression,” says Insel. This is important, he says, because so far, pharmaceutical treatments for neurological disease have suffered from a lack of specificity. Koroshetz adds that funding institutes are eager for treatments that are innovative, non-invasive and quickly translatable to people.

Since publishing their mouse paper, Boyden says, he has had a deluge of requests from researchers wanting to use the same technique to treat other conditions. But there are a lot of details to work out. “We need to figure out what is the most effective, non-invasive way of manipulating oscillations in different parts of the brain,” he says. “Perhaps it is using light, but maybe it’s a smart pillow or a headband that could target these oscillations using electricity or sound.” One of the simplest methods that scientists have found is neurofeedback, which has shown some success in treating a range of conditions, including anxiety, depression and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. People who use this technique are taught to control their brainwaves by measuring them with an EEG and getting feedback in the form of visual or audio cues."

Helen Thompson, Nature Magazine

Did you get that?

Non pharma therapy for Alzheimers and Parkinsons.  Using lights and sounds to help the brain to focus better, to get rid of plaque, to show that the brain functions like a receiver...

The brain is a receiver of information, and it sends it to the right pathways.  It receives sensations, but also receives information from the "other two thirds of our conscious energy that is always back home."

For a science cite that the brain is not the sole creator of consciousness, please view Dr. Greyson's talk "Is Consciousness Produced by the Brain?".  It's 90 minutes and cites numerous medical cases where non functioning brains were still conscious, or that after an autopsy showed they should not have been functioning but did function.  Greyson is interviewed in "It's a Wonderful Afterlife" but the video can be seen here.

This is just my way of saying, "Hey, you brain scientists out there.  You're looking in the wrong direction."

Why is it important for me to stand on the stage, turn on the lights and shout "IT'S ONLY A PLAY!!"  Because these scientists are directing policy, influencing medical care, and they have not yet understood or begun to explore how it can be that our consciousness exists prior to coming here, it exists after we are here, and it exists WHILE WE ARE HERE.  In other words, if you "want to be in touch with the other two thirds of your consciousness" you can.



My two cents.

Not mine. Curtis Hanson's

Having a Near Life Experience, Classrooms and an Interview

I answered this question on Quora today...

How would you define a "near life" experience?





That’s the term I prefer to use rather than “near death” experience.

Near death experiences occur when a person feels their consciousness leave their body and moves to another plane.  There are thousands of cases, many have been studied and cataloged by Dr. Greyson at UVA.  

There are many that can be examined at iands.org.  

People describe a variety of experiences, but by and large they are positive and give people a euphoric feeling and alter any fears of death.

However if we compare those near death experiences with the research done by Dr. Helen Wambach (“Life before Life’) or Michael Newton (“Journey of Souls”) two psychologists who studied what their clients said under deep hypnosis about their journey, we find similiar stories about what it’s like “back home” - that place that’s not here, but is where people consistently claim we “return to” after our departure from this plane.

So let’s examine what that might mean.  These people (I’ve filmed 45 so far) consistently refer to this arena, what Michael Newton called the “life between lives” realm - but what I’m hearing people call “home” - is reported to be a place of “unconditional love.”  

It’s the place that we exist prior to coming here - and further, people claim we only bring a certain amount of our conscious energy to our lifetime, and roughly two thirds of that energy is always “back home” while we are here.

So if the place that we come from is “home” and the majority of our conscious energy is always “back there” then that’s a reframe of what it means to be here on the planet, what it means to be “alive.”  When we are here, sleeping for a third of our lives, living and breathing and navigating the human animal that we are, we are as far away from our natural state as we can imagine.  

Like waking up and finding ourselves on Mars - trying to navigate that atmosphere, trying to stay alive in that environment, and then when that lifetime is over, returning “home” to earth (for example.) 

Mars. Look familiar? It should.

If that’s accurate, that the lifetime we lead here on the planet is one that is “not like being home”that our journey to this place is “unlike our natural state” - then having a near death experience is like getting a glimpse of what “real life”is like.  It’s getting a glimpse of what our natural state is - in a space of unconditional love surrounded by our loved ones and soul mates, and having a feeling of interconnectivity to everyone and all things.  That’s essential what our existence is,according to these reports, essential what “being alive” entails.

And our journey here to the planet seems more like “being in a fishtank” or “existing in a dream”or “finding oneself onstage in the middle of a play.”  In other words, this world, this place where we currently inhabit, is the false front, the imaginary world that we navigate on a daily basis.  

And when we have a near death event, or some other altered consciousness event, we get a glimpse of what LIFE really is - hence why I call them “near life events” rather than the former."

Near Life on Earth.

Then I answer this Quora question:

What do you think souls are doing in heaven?


Ask them.

There’s an odd construct while we are here on the planet. We assume that when people die, their consciousness does as well. But that’s just not in the data. 

What is in the data is the reports of thousands of people who’ve had near death experiences (iands.org) where they report not only that we don’t die, but that we “return” somewhere we’ve been before.

What the people under deep hypnosis consistently say (I’ve filmed 45 sessions and examined thousands of cases from psychologists Dr. Helen Wambach and Michael Newton) is that we existed prior to coming here, that we don’t bring all of our consciousness to our incarnation (reportedly about a third) and when we leave this plane, we return to merge with the consciousness left behind.

In this question there are two brain freeze parts; the word “soul” and the word “heaven.” In this research, people don’t use the word “heaven” but claim that people are “going home.” 

In other words, the construct of the word “heaven” is reflective of the person saying it. They claim that during their between life experience they have feelings of “unconditional love” and experience “joy” - but they don’t refer to this place as anywhere but “home.” As in the place we return to after we are here.

No two descriptions of this place match - other than the hallmarks of seeing “soul mates” or people we normally incarnate with, of seeing “spirit guides” or the people who have guided us through “all of our lifetimes.”

Occassionally they encounter some being they ascribe to being “god” or “godlike.” No two descriptions match either - other than describing an “intense bright light.” People refer to “creator” or “creators” but none of the reports follow any of the religions that are on the planet that I’m aware of. 

The closest belief system that I’ve come across is that of either aboriginals of Australia (who believe that being awake is being in a “dream” and that while we are asleep (or that our consciousness can roam free) is “reality” (which is what people under deep hypnosis also claim) or those beliefs of native Americans that “every object is imbued with energy” or “the great spirit.” These accounts are remarkably similar to what people under deep hypnosis claim about the process.

So I’m happy to say there is no “soul that goes to heaven” in the research. But I’m equally happy to report that “our consciousness returns home after life.”

Now that I’ve opened that door (and it’s not a door everyone should open, nor am I suggesting people should open it - it’s just what I’ve been doing the past decade) - I can tell you what people report they are doing “back home.”

Going to class.

I’m sorry if that’s stressful to some - I know it was to me when I heard it, as in “I went to school for 18 odd years, you’re telling me I have to go back to class on the flipside?” But in all the cases I’ve filmed - the 45 at least, and the thousands I’ve read that Michael Newton has gathered - people claim that while we are “back home” we also “attend class.”

Mom and I started our own class in 1959

I’ve also done 5 of these between life sessions and each time I’ve “visited” one of these classrooms. All I can say is that my conscious mind is saying “woah! a classroom!) ((while “under hypnosis” your conscious mind is always aware, you’re just allowing the subconscious to speak)) - and in each of the classrooms I’ve visited I’ve been able to ask questions to the people who are teaching the class. (I reported this in “Flipside” as well as “It’s a Wonderful Afterlife.”)

What are the classes about?

They’re mostly about the transference of energy from one medium to the next. I’ve seen classes of students learning about how to help channel “the healing light of the universe into doctors, healers and others who are trying to help people on the planet” I’ve seen a class where students work on “geometric shapes, fractals that retain all of the memories of previous lifetimes yet travel with us during our lives so we have access to them.” 

I’ve attended a class where the teacher showed me on a “chalkboard” the formula for “creating crystals.” (I’m not a scientist so I wish I understood them - but it was something to do with “time” “intense pressure” “intent” - and in my mind’s eye I was shown examples of pink crystals that the class was working on.

In Newton’s books he has clients report about these classes. And in the book “My Life After Life” by Galen Stoller, (who wrote the foreword to “It’s a Wonderful Afterlife” volume two from the flipside) he reports attending these classes, and what it’s like to find yourself in one, to look around at the other students in attendance, and what a particular teacher looks like.

But aside from classes, what else are people doing? Playing complex elaborate games. In one case, (“Its a Wonderful Afterlife”) this film producer I know, a skeptic, who didn’t think “she would get anywhere” under hypnosis, but agreed to let me film her doing a sessions - said that her “soul group” was playing an elaborate game of tag. 

The hypnotherapist (scott de tamble of lightbetweenlives.com) asked “What kind of tag?” She said all six members of her soul group could “hide anywhere” and that in order to win, you had to “tag all six of them.”

with Jennifer Shaffer and Scott De Tamble

Scott asked “What do you mean hide?” She said “They’re invisible and they can hide anywhere in the universe.” Then she said “Oh, and they’re showing me the advanced version where you can hide in other realms as well. And you have to find all six of them before you win.”

Again - this kind of inquiry isn’t for everyone. I’m not trying to stir the pot, or trying to make any claims about anything. I’m just reporting (as a journalist and a filmmaker) what people are saying under deep hypnosis about the afterlife. It’s not my opinion,belief or theory about what they’re saying - I’m reporting verbatim what they are saying. And it’s been consistent over the past ten years and 45 sessions (I’ve done 5 myself.)

What I’m working on at the moment is “conversing” with folks on the flipside, via different mediums. (including JenniferShaffer.com) I ask the same questions to different mediums who don’t know each other,don’t know the individual I’m asking the questions to, and seeing what answers I get. 

I can only say that the answers have been consistent whether I ask them, where someone else asks them, or they’re written in advance. And while working on that ability to “talk to the flipside” I’ve found that they are much easier to access than we think they are.

The “proof” that they are communicating with me is in “new information.” Details that only they could know, that I later find out to be accurate through forensic research. In other words, could not be cryptomnesia, hypoxia, or synesthesia - they’re telling me something I could not know, something the medium could not know, but upon later research discover to be accurate.

Finally, here's a link to a "book talk" I did on air with Ana Velasquez:

Hacking the Afterlife with Rich Martini


“Hacking the Afterlife” offers that it’s possible to obtain “new information” from people no longer on the planet. 

These “afterlife interviews” offer practical advice (“afterlife hacks”) on how to navigate our lives and improve our planet. 

Martini’s inspiration and curiosity comes from the technique used by Dr. Michael Newton that allows people to access the between lives realm, or LBLs
Listen in as Rich takes a friend with a near death experience through this “Hacking the Afterlife” process.

Writer/Director/Author Richard Martini is an award winning filmmaker, who has written and/or directed 8 theatrical features, and a number of documentaries. 

His first book, “Flipside: A Tourist’s Guide on How to Navigate the Afterlife” went to #1 twice at Amazon in all its genres. The book is based on transcripts of a documentary he made which is available at Amazon (Flipside: A Journey Into the Afterlife) and Gaiam TV. 

His books “It’s a Wonderful Afterlife” volumes one and two expands the research into the afterlife from Michael Newton’s work, to include interviews with a number of scientists in the field of consciousness, including Dr. Bruce Greyson, Dr. Mario Beauregard, and Gary Schwartz Phd. 

He also examines near death experiences and compares their accounts to similar ones during between life sessions (the technique used by Michael Newton that allows people to access the between lives realm, or LBLs) and other examples (OBEs) where people may have lost their ability to think normally, but are having the same experiences. In “Hacking the Afterlife” he interviews mediums and explores “interviewing people no longer on the planet.” As Gary Schwartz put it after reading “Flipside” “Inspiring, well written and entertaining. The kind of book where once you have read it, you will no longer be able to see the world in the same way again.”

http://www.intentiontraining.com/2018/02/12/hacking-the-afterlife/

Listen to my interview with Rich Martini

Thinking Without a Box

Thinking Without a Box

Photo by Russ Titelman

Ran across this article today about consciousness:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/thinking-outside-the-quantum-box/

Thinking Outside the Quantum Box
How the mind can make sense of quantum physics in more ways than one 


Credit: PM Images Getty Images

By Bernardo Kastrup on February 16, 2018
Thinking Outside the Quantum Box

"The counterintuitive predictions of quantum theory have now been experimentally confirmed with unprecedented rigor. Yet, the question of how to interpret the meaning of these predictions remains controversial. A Wikipedia table summarizing different interpretations of quantum mechanics included no less than fourteen entries at the time of this writing. New interpretations regularly appear.

The problem is that quantum theory contradicts our intuitive understanding of what “real” means. According to the theory, if two real particles A and B are prepared in a special way, what Alice sees when she observes particle A depends on how Bob concurrently observes particle B, even if the particles—as well as Alice and Bob—are separated by an arbitrary distance. This “spooky action at a distance,” as Einstein called it, contradicts either local causation or the very notion that particles A and B are “real,” in the sense of existing independently of observation. As it turns out, certain statistical properties of the observations, which have been experimentally confirmed, indicate the latter: that the particles do not exist independently of observation. And since observation ultimately consists of what is apprehended on the mental screen of perception, the implication may be that “the Universe is entirely mental,” as put by Richard Conn Henry in his 2005 Nature essay.

The problem, of course, is that the hypothesis of a universe whose very existence depends on our minds contradicts mainstream scientific intuitions. So physicists scramble to interpret quantum theory in a way that makes room for a mind-independent reality. A popular way to do this entails postulating imagined, empirically unverifiable, theoretical entities defined as observer-independent. Naturally, this goes beyond mere interpretation; it adds redundant baggage to quantum theory, in the sense that the theory needs none of this stuff to successfully predict what it predicts.

Some cringe at such attempts to modify quantum mechanics to make it fit one’s worldview, as opposed to adapting one’s worldview to make it consistent with quantum mechanics. So the question that naturally arises is: If we stick to plain quantum theory, what does it tell us about reality? Physicist Carlo Rovelli tried to answer this question rigorously and the result is now known as relational quantum mechanics (RQM).

According to RQM, there are no absolute—that is, observer-independent—physical quantities. Instead, all physical quantities—the entire physical world—are relative to the observer, in a way analogous to motion. This is motivated by the fact that, according to quantum theory, different observers can account differently for the same sequence of events. Consequently, each observer is inferred to “inhabit” its own physical world, as defined by the context of its own observations.

The price of this uncompromising honesty in acknowledging the implications of quantum mechanics is a number of philosophical qualms. First, the idea that the physical world one inhabits is a product of one’s private observations seems to imply solipsism, an anathema in philosophy. Second, RQM entails that “a complete description of the world is exhausted by the relevant [Shannon] information that systems have about each other.” However, according to Shannon, information isn’t a thing unto itself. Instead, it is constituted by the discernible configurations of a substrate.

Yet, if there is no absolute physical substrate, what then constitutes information? Third—and perhaps most problematic of all—the RQM tenet that all physical quantities are relative raises an obvious question: relative to what? We only see meaning in a relative quantity such as motion because we assume there to be absolute physical bodies that move with respect to one another. But RQM denies all physical absolutes that could ground the meaning of relative quantities.

Notice that the root of all these philosophical qualms is the assumption that only physical quantities exist. If physical quantities arise from personal observation and they are all there is, then solipsism is indeed implied. If physical quantities are grounded in information and they are all there is, then information indeed lacks a substrate. If physical quantities are relative and they are all there is, then there are indeed no absolutes to ground their meaning. I shall return to this insight shortly.

For now, however, it would seem that biting the bullet of plain quantum theory, without decorating it with imagined bells and whistles, forces us into unresolvable philosophical qualms. Yet, this conclusion is false. To see how we can get out of this quagmire we need only to be rigorous about the epistemic scope of physics.

Stanford physicist Andrei Linde, of cosmic inflation fame, provided an important clue when he observed that “our knowledge of the world begins not with matter but with perceptions.... Later we find out that our perceptions obey some laws, which can be most conveniently formulated if we assume that there is some underlying reality beyond our perceptions.... This assumption is almost as natural (and maybe as false) as our previous assumption that space is only a mathematical tool for the description of matter.” Hence, in the absence of an absolute, observer-independent substrate, the physical world of RQM can only be the contents of perception. There is nothing else for it to be.

Now recall that the philosophical qualms of RQM rest on the assumption that only physical quantities—that is, contents of perception—exist. However—and here is the key point—next to the contents of perception there are, of course, also non-perceptual mental categories such as thoughts. Many physicists posit that thoughts should be explainable in terms of physical quantities and, as such, become part of the physical world by reduction. But this is a philosophical assumption that does not change the scientific fact that quantum mechanics does not predict thoughts; it only predicts the unfolding of perception, even when what is predicted—and later perceived—is the output of instrumentation.

So the possibility that presents itself to us is that thoughts are the absolutes that ground the meaning of the relative physical quantities of RQM. In other words, all physical quantities on the screen of perception may arise as relationships between thoughts. Moreover, since both thoughts and perceptions are mental in essence, this line of reasoning points to mind as the primary substrate of nature, the discernible states of which constitute information.

The hypothesis here, which I have elaborated upon in detail elsewhere, is that thought—whose characteristic ambiguities may in fact be what quantum superposition states ultimately represent—underlies all nature and isn’t restricted to living organisms. The physical world of an observing organism may arise from an interaction—an interference pattern—between the organism’s thoughts and the thoughts underlying the inanimate universe that surrounds it. Although each organism—in accordance with RQM—may indeed inhabit its own private world of perceptions, all organisms may be surrounded by a common environment of thoughts, which avoids solipsism at least in spirit.

Conn Henry’s courageous assertion that “the Universe is entirely mental” isn’t only a seeming implication of recent experimental observations, it may also point the way to an elegant philosophical underpinning for what is perhaps the most rigorous and parsimonious interpretation of quantum mechanics. Mind, it seems, may offer a path out of the quantum quagmire in more ways than one.

Note: This essay is based on the paper “Making Sense of the Mental Universe,” published in Philosophy and Cosmology, Vol. 19, pages 33-49.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Bernardo Kastrup

Bernardo Kastrup has a Ph.D. in computer engineering from Eindhoven University of Technology and specializations in artificial intelligence and reconfigurable computing. He has worked as a scientist in some of the world's foremost research laboratories, including the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories. He has authored many science and philosophy papers, as well as several philosophy books. His three most recent books are: "More Than Allegory," "Brief Peeks Beyond" and "Why Materialism Is Baloney."

Bernardo Kastrup

If I may weigh in; substitute the word consciousness for "observation" in this article. 

I.e, "This “spooky action at a distance,” as Einstein called it, contradicts either local causation or the very notion that particles A and B are “real,” in the sense of existing independently of CONSCIOUSNESS."

Our consciousness alters the outcome. 

Once we can define consciousness - which appears to be like light, both particle and wave, we have a clearer picture of its function. 

It functions like water; can shift or move to another place (us) but still remain part of the pond. We have our own pond which is composed of the same elements of the ocean, but is still "our pond." 

We reportedly only bring about a third to any lifetime; two thirds of our conscious energy remains "back home." 

All connected all the time.

(Note: This is based on the thousands of cases reported by both Dr. Helen Wambach ("Life Before Life") and Michael Newton ("Journey of Souls.") I've examined these as well as numerous NDE cases,filmed 45 of my own "deep hypnosis sessions" where people say relatively THE SAME THINGS about the afterlife, no matter what their background, gender or religious affiliation.  
     I chose the 45 subjects based on their skepticism, lack of religious beliefs, or in some cases because of them.  It did not matter who asked the questions, or who was answering them - their answers are all relatively the same about the process,and that fact that we bring "about a third" of our conscious energy to a lifetime, and the remaining "two thirds" is "back home" - "where we came from initially prior to incarnating here.)

Once we view consciousness as both particle and wave we can see how it can be in two places at once, can alter events, can change outcomes can apparently shift in "time." 

Being outside of time, or the physical elements of our known universe, our consciousness is not bound by them either. 

Multiple lifetimes in one head?
(On set in Mumbai making "My Bollywood Bride")
You'd take this guys word on consciousness? Oy.

I am not a scientist, I'm a journalist and filmmaker.  I based the above observation on the cases I've been researching over the past decade. It's not a theory, belief or philosophical construct - I'm reporting what people consistently say under deep hypnosis, or whom have had near death events (NDE) and have done hypnosis sessions to revisit them. 

My point is; once we start to understand the function of consciousness, we stop thinking about it as an object to be created or invented, and observe it as both "particle and wave" or something that is both a mechanism and a medium. My two cents.

Both wave and particle.