Evolver Social Movement: Building communities, spreading new ideas, and inspiring transformation.

Flying Tonight

flying1.jpg

 

The following is excerpted from Paranormality, available now on Kindle.  

 

On the face of it, out of body experiences appear amazing.  During these episodes, people feel as if they have left their body and are able to fly around without it, with many being convinced that they have found out some information that they couldn't possibly have known otherwise. Many people report seeing their actual body during the experience, with some commenting on a strange kind of 'astral cord' linking their floaty self to their real self. Surveys suggest that between ten and twenty percent of the population has had an OBE, often when they are extremely relaxed, anaesthetized, undergoing some form of sensory deprivation such as being in a floatation tank, or on marijuana (bringing a new meaning to the term 'getting high').

What is the explanation for these strange sensations? Are people's souls really drifting away from their earthbound bodies? Or are these light-headed moments the result of our brains playing tricks on us? And, if that is the case, what does that say about where we are the rest of the time?

 

The strange case of the spiritual sneakers

Open nearly any book about out-of-body and near-death experiences and you will soon read about Maria and the worn-out tennis shoe.

In April 1977 a migrant worker named Maria from Washington state suffered a severe heart attack and was rushed into Harborview Medical Centre. After three days in hospital Maria went into cardiac arrest, but was quickly resuscitated. Later that day she met with her social worker, Kimberly Clark, and explained that something deeply strange had happened during the second heart attack.

Maria had undergone a classic out-of-body experience. As the medical staff worked to save her life, she found herself floating out of her body and looking down on the scene seeing a paper chart spewing out from a machine monitoring her vital signs. A few moments later she found herself outside the hospital looking at the surrounding roads, car parks and the outside of the building.

Maria told Clark that she had seen information that she could not have known from her bed, providing descriptions of the entrance to the emergency ward and the road around the hospital building. Although the information was correct, Clark was initially sceptical, assuming that Maria had unconsciously picked up the information when she had been admitted to the hospital. However, it was Maria's next revelation that made Clark question her own scepticism.

Maria said that at one point on her ethereal journey she had drifted over to the north side of the building, and that an unusual object on the outside of a third floor window ledge had caught her attention. Using her mind power to zoom in, Maria saw that the object was actually a tennis shoe, with a little more zooming revealing that the shoe was well worn and the laces were tucked under the heel. Maria asked Clark if she would mind seeing if the tennis shoe actually existed.

Clark walked outside the building and looked around, but couldn't spot anything unusual. Then she went up to the rooms in the north wing of the building and looked out of the windows. Apparently this was easier said than done, with the narrow windows meaning that she had to press her face against the glass to see onto the ledges. After much face pushing Clark was amazed to see that there was indeed an old tennis shoe sitting on one of the ledges.

'Fifteen-love' to the believers.

As Clark reached out onto the ledge and retrieved the shoe she noticed that it was indeed well worn and that the laces were tucked under the heel.

'Thirty-love.'

Moreover, Clark noticed that the position of the laces would only have been apparent to someone viewing the tennis shoe from outside the building.

'Forty-love.'

Clark published Maria's remarkable story in 1985 and since then the case has been cited in endless books, magazine articles and websites as watertight evidence that the spirit can leave the body.

In 1996  sceptic scientists Hayden Ebbern, Sean Mulligan and Barry Beyerstein from Simon Fraser University in Canada decided to investigate the story. Two of the trio visited Harborview Medical Centre, interviewed Clark and located the window ledge that Maria had apparently seen all of those years before. They placed one of their own running shoes on the ledge, closed the window and stood back. Contrary to Clark's comments, they did not need to push their faces against the glass to see the shoe. In fact, the shoe was easily visible from within the room and could even have been spotted by a patient lying in a bed.

'Forty-fifteen.'

Next, the sceptics wandered outside the building and noticed that their experimental running shoe was surprisingly easy to spot from the hospital grounds. In fact, when they returned to the hospital one week later the shoe had been removed, further undermining the notion that it was difficult to spot.

'Forty-thirty.'

Ebbern, Mulligan and Beyerstein believe that Maria may have overheard a comment about the shoe while sedated or half-asleep during her three days in hospital, and then incorporated this information into her out-of-body experience. They also point out that Clark didn't publish her description of the incident until seven years after it happened, and thus there was plenty of time for it to have become exaggerated in the telling and retelling. Given that key aspects of the story were highly questionable, the trio thought that there was little reason to believe other aspects of the case, such as Maria saying that the shoe was well-worn prior to its discovery, and the lace being trapped under its heel.

'Deuce'

Just a few hours at the hospital revealed that the report of Maria's infamous experience was not all that it was cracked up to be. Despite this, the story has been endlessly repeated by writers who either couldn't be bothered to check the facts, or were unwilling to present their readers with the more sceptical side of the story. Those who believed in the existence of the soul were going to have to come up with more compelling and water-tight evidence.

'New balls please.'

 

How to feel like a rubber hand

The infamous case of the tennis shoe on the ledge provides less than compelling evidence for the notion that people are able to float away from their bodies. Worse still, several researchers invested a considerable amount of time and effort conducting more rigorous tests of the notion and also drew a blank. For example, parapsychologist Karlis Osis tested over a hundred people who claimed that they could induce an OBE at will, asking each to leave their body, travel to a distant room and identify the randomly selected picture that had been placed there. The vast majority of his participants were confident that they had made the trip but as a group they scored no better than chance. Similarly, researcher John Palmer and his colleagues from the University of Virginia in Charlottesville used a variety of relaxation-based techniques to train people to have OBEs and then asked them to use their new-found ability to discover the identity of a distant target. In a series of studies involving over 150 participants, the experimenters failed to detect any reliable evidence of extrasensory perception.

In short, the best anecdotal cases studies of OBEs turned out to be a tad unreliable, and experiments involving hundreds of OBEers attempting to identify thousands of hidden targets failed to yield convincing results.

After all of this, it might appear that out of the body experiences have nothing to offer the curious mind. However, subsequent work has adopted a very different approach to the problem and, in doing so, both solved the mystery and provided an important insight into the innermost workings of your brain.

How do you know where you are? Or, to put it in slightly more philosophical language - why do you think that you are inside your own body?

It many ways, it seems like an odd question. After all, we seem to be inside our bodies and that is that. However, the question has hidden depths. Perhaps the greatest insights have come from a ground-breaking experiment that you can recreate in your own home using just a table, a large coffee table book, a towel, a rubber hand and an open-minded friend.

Start by sitting at the table and placing both of your arms on the tabletop. Next, move your right arm about six inches to the right and place the rubber hand where your right hand used to be.  Now stand the book vertically on the tabletop between your right arm and the rubber hand, ensuring that it prevents you from seeing your right arm. Then use the towel to cover the space between your right hand and the rubber hand.  Finally, ask your friend to sit opposite you, extend their first fingers and use them to stroke both your right hand and the rubber hand in the same place at the same time. After about a minute or so of stroking you will start to feel that the rubber hand is actually part of you.

To explain what's going on here, let's use a simple analogy. Imagine walking around in a new city and suddenly realizing that you are lost. The only way forward is to go hunting for a signpost.  Similarly, when your brain is trying to decide where 'you' are it has to rely on the equivalent of signposts, namely, information from your senses.

Most of the time this works really well. Your brain might, for example, see your hand and feel pressure from your fingertip, and so correctly assume that ‘you' are in your arm. However, in the same way that people sometimes mess around with signposts and point them in the wrong direction, so once in a while your brain will mess up. The rubber hand experiment is one of those situations. During the study, your brain ‘feels' your left hand being stroked, ‘sees' a dummy hand being subjected to simultaneous stroking, concludes that 'you' must therefore be located in the dummy hand, and constructs a sense of self that is consistent with this idea. In short, the sense of where you are is not hard-wired into your brain. Instead, it is the result of your brain constantly using information from your senses to come up with a sensible guess. Because of this, the sense of ‘you' being inside your body is subject to change at a moment's notice.

It is one thing to convince people that part of them inhabits a dummy hand, but is it possible to use the same idea to move a person out of their entire body? Neuroscientist Bigna Lenggenhager, from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland, decided to investigate.

If you were to take part in one of Lenggenhager's studies you would be taken into her laboratory, asked to stand in the centre of the room and fitted with a pair of virtual reality goggles. A researcher would then place a camera a few feet behind you and feed the output into your goggles, causing you to see an image of your own back standing a few feet in front of you. Next an animated stick would appear on the image in front of you and slowly stroke your virtual back. At the same time the researchers would sneak up behind the real you and slowly stroke your back with a highlighter pen, being careful to ensure that the actual stroking matched the virtual stroking. The experimental set-up is identical to the dummy hand and paintbrush study, but with the ‘virtual you' taking the place of the dummy hand and a highlighter pen replacing the paintbrush. In the same way that stroking the dummy hand produced the strange sensation that part of you inhabited the hand, so Lenggenhager's set-up resulted in people feeling as if their entire body was actually standing a few feet in front of themselves.

The dummy hand and virtual reality experiments demonstrate that the everyday feeling of being inside your body is constructed by the brain from sensory information. Alter that information and it is relatively easy to get people to feel as if they are outside of their bodies. Of course, people don't have access to rubber hands and aren't wired into virtual reality systems when they have out-of-body experiences. However, many researchers now think that this strangely counter-intuitive idea is essential to understanding the nature of these episodes.

 

Witchcraft, LSD and Tarot cards

Sue Blackmore's interest in the paranormal dates back to 1970 when she was a student at Oxford University and had a dramatic out-of-body experience. After several hours experimenting with the Ouija board and then relaxing with some marijuana, Sue felt herself rise out of her body, float up to the ceiling, fly across England, travel over the Atlantic, and hover around New York. Eventually she travelled back to Oxford, entered her body through her neck and finally expanded to fill the entire universe. Other than that it was a quiet night.

Upon her return to reality, Sue became fascinated with weird experiences, trained as a white witch, and eventually decided to devote herself to parapsychology. For many years she examined the psychology of paranormal experiences and beliefs, trying to figure out why people experienced seemingly supernatural sensations and bought into such strange stuff. Most recently she has turned her attention to the mystery of consciousness, focusing on the ways in which the brain creates a sense of self (although, rather disappointingly, the ‘Who Am I' tab on her website delivers a straight biography).

However, Blackmore is perhaps best known in sceptical circles for her work explaining out-of-body experiences. She took as her starting point the notion that the feeling of being located inside your body is an illusion created by your brain on the basis of incoming sensory information. Then, in the same way that a rather weird set of circumstances involving a dummy hand or a virtual reality system can cause people to believe that they are elsewhere, Blackmore wondered whether an equally strange set of circumstances might cause people to think that they had floated away from their bodies. Sue focused her attention on two elements that were central to most OBEs.

Sue realised that if you present someone with a constant sound, image, or smell and something very peculiar happens. They slowly get more and more used to it, until eventually it vanishes from their awareness. For example, if you walk into a room that smells of freshly ground coffee, you quickly detect the rather pleasant aroma. However, stay in the room for a few minutes, and the smell will seem to disappear. In fact, the only way to re-awaken it is to walk out of the room and back in again.

Blackmore speculated that this process was also central to OBEs. People tend to experience OBEs when they are in situations in which their brains are receiving a small amount of unchanging information from the senses. They are often robbed of any visual information because they have their eyes shut or are in the dark. In addition, they usually don't have any tactile information because they are lying in bed, relaxing in the bath, or are on certain drugs. Under these circumstances the brain quickly becomes ‘blind' to the small amount of information that is coming in, and so struggles to produce a coherent image of where ‘you' are.

Like nature, brains abhor a vacuum, and so start to generate imagery about where they are and what they are doing. That is part of the reason why people are more likely to have images flowing through their mind when they shut their eyes, are in the dark or take drugs. Blackmore hypothesized that certain types of people would naturally find it easy to imagine what the world looks like when you float out of your body, and also become so absorbed in their imagery that they confused imagination for reality, and that these individuals that would be especially likely to experience OBEs.

To test her theory Blackmore carried out several experiments. In one of them she asked people to imagine yourself being about six feet above where they actually are, and rate the clarity of their imagery and the ease with which they switched from one perspective to another. Sue presented this task to two groups of people - those that had experienced an out-of-body experience and those that had not - and obtained very different results. Those that had previously experienced floating away from themselves tended to report much more vivid images and found it much easier to switch between the two perspectives.

In short, Blackmore's data suggests that people who experience OBEs are much better than others at naturally generating the type of imagery associated with the experience, and struggle to tell the difference between reality and imagination. Put these people in a situation where their bodies receive only a small amount of unchanging information about where they actually are and, just like the people taking part in the dummy hand and virtual reality experiments, they can end up believing that they are no longer located inside their bodies.

 

Putting it all together

Research into out-of-body experiences has revealed that your brain constantly relies on information from your senses to construct the feeling that you are inside your body. Fool your senses with the help of rubber hands and virtual reality systems, and suddenly you can feel as if you are part of a table or standing a few feet in front of your body. Rob your brain of these signals and it has no idea where you are. Couple this sense of being lost with vivid imagery of flying around, and your brain convinces itself that you are floating away from your body.

Your brain automatically and unconsciously carries out the vitally important ‘where am I?' task every moment of your waking life. Without it, you would feel that you are part of the chair you are sitting on one moment and in the floor the next. With it, you have the stable sense of constantly being inside your body. Out-of-body experiences are not paranormal and do not provide evidence for the soul. Instead, they reveal something far more remarkable about the everyday workings of your brain and body.

 

 

 

 

 

Teaser image by Alexandre Dulaunoy, courtesy of Creative Commons license. 

Comments

OBE's are real

As someone who has personally experienced out of body experiences and astral projection, I can say they are definitely real. I wish I was better at controlling it. For those who would like to learn, Robert Monroe's books are a good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Monroe

It's also worthwhile to note that the CIA has been well aware that OBE's are real since the 70's or earlier, and utilized controlled OBE's as part of their Stargate spy project during the cold war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

The soviets also engaged extensively in this kind of research during that time, and probably still do.

Wise men simply embrace the paradox

Interesting to find such an article on RS. Professor Richard Wiseman's reputation precedes him, and I'm looking forward to the debates that will follow in the comments. But the fact that he gets to promote his new book here is mildly disturbing. For those unaware of the controversy, Wiseman has been accused of misrepresenting the ideas and research of others as well as straight-up lying about his own results when they don't support his viewpoint. See for instance this article on Skeptico:

http://www.skeptiko.com/134-rupert-sheldrake-on-richard-wiseman-deceptio...

I believe the main obstacle in the paranormal debate is the inability or unwillingness of people to set aside their prejudices and accept the fact that no one standpoint can envelop the truth. That is because reality and consciousness are in essence paradoxical. As is always the case in psychology, multiple perspectives offer the best basis for understanding phenomena in a way that is relevant and valuable. As long as people stick to either/or thinking, this debate will never end. For every individual who reports a life-changing mystical experience, another responds by citing a study on the brain's ability to deceive itself. For every skeptic dismissing the overwhelming quantity of anecdotal data, there is a believer neglecting the alternative explanations science and critical thinking have to offer. And for every right-brain dominant individual approaching the phenomenon from a poetic, holistic and psychologically useful perspective, there is a left-brain dominant interpreting it from a mechanistic, analytic and spiritually disempowering standpoint.

This is not to demean or glorify either half of the brain. It's just that the two hemispheres show two distinct modes of consciousness, both of which are necessary and useful yet dangerous when out of balance with the other. Extreme academic/scientistic/rational-centered types have a tendency to get stuck in the cold, detached right-brain perspective that allows us to break things apart and understand them independently from their inherent connectedness and interdependence, but eventually leads to the tediously boring conviction that objective facts are the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth. On the other hand, extreme creative/artistic/intuitive-centered types may dwell in a wholesome egoic fog of dedifferentiation between opposites (e.g. Self/Other) yet cultivate the megalomaniacal delusions that their subjective impressions and beliefs are the underlying "Ground of Reality".

Not every case is so extreme, but obviously it seems important to find a balance, to operate these seemingly incongruent modes in tandem, because no one and no thing has a monopoly on Truth. We can only seek out the most useful and uplifting facts and beliefs, rather than the most "true". We have two hemispheres for the same reason that we have two hands. We need them to make sense of life, manipulate our environment, and create beautiful and meaningful things like art and religion. Those familiar with Alien Hand Syndrome know how (self) destructive a one-sided brain can be.

As the rubber hand experiment shows, it is possible to appreciate and learn from the mystery of the brain's plasticity while acknowledging the "artificiality" (in the end, what isn't "artifical"?) of the experience. It should also be possible to accept the notion that nature is infinitely more subtle and mysterious than a rubber hand, and that humans are much more than their brains, and definitely more than just one half of the brain.

For more information on the extremely interesting and relevant properties and consequences of hemispheric assymmetry, please check out Iain McGilchrist's work and his extremely well received book, "The Master and his Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World". 

Mush!

Your points are very well-taken, JohnfromtheTemple.  Thank you for spending the time and energy to communicate this relevant and highly informative content.  I believe moving forward with the understanding "that no one standpoint can envelop the truth" is an important lesson in our enlightening age.  Absorbing this can help us establish a balance within our own consciousness, as well as encourage the external tendency of interacting with more love and peace among our differing peoples through the recognition of the paradox of truths within us all.

 

I'm really starting to dig this RS trend of posting a greater variety of viewpoints.  I see the resultant working out of different perspectives on reality as part of the mysterious and scientifically calculable process of our inevitably growing interconnectedness.

 

I have been feeling it in myself lately--a bit of exciting struggle.  Its like I'm sledding, propelled by the dogs of free will.  If I over-balance toward my rational faculties, I crash into the icy, blue glacier to my left; but too much time spent on flights of fancy risks an untethering into the molten abyss on my right.

 

I have to say its been a lot more fun lately!  I've been selfishly taking the time and creating the thought-space to analyze my balance amidst the constant flux of energy in matter, and I've found that it can be a fun Adventure Time!  Bring on the madness of constant change, baby!

 Mush!

Wise People Undo Paradox

As long as people stick to either/or thinking, this debate will never end.

Well, and as long as people stick to both/and thinking, people will never learn to discriminate, too.

Alternatively:

  • If people make use of either/or thinking, they can make use of discriminate.
  • If people make use of both/and thinking, they can see things in new light.
I believe that paradox holds a promise of future clarity.  I no longer puzzle over how the chinese finger trap works, and I am no longer mystified when I see one. I think a Paradox is best treated in stages:
  1. It is marveled at from a distance.
  2. It is approached.  Complexities appear as we get closer.
  3. It is apprehended.  The various forces are seen, and we now understand.
  4. It is left.  We now understand it.  We are not mystified by it.
Note that 4 does not mean that we lose touch with our inner child, or become insensitive to the world. The word "Paradox" should not be used to stop thought nor should it be used to stop discussion.  If someone says "I am right, you are wrong" -- well, they very well may be. Sometimes a person -- even a single person -- holds the truth.  They may not have The Truth, but they can hold the truth -- and it's worth paying attention to. If scientists hold the truth, and religion holds The Truth, -- well, I'll take both, thank you very much -- and I'm going to continue to discriminate. We need to get beyond "either/or" and "both/and."  We could discover a new plane:  The either-or-both-and.

@LionKimbro

Well, and as long as people stick to both/and thinking, people will never learn to discriminate, too.   

So much should be clear from my comment, since it emphasizes finding a balance between different modes of perception.

But I don't see how you can "undo" paradox, as you wrote. Probably not by simply pointing out the duality of non-duality, which is what I think you're doing. But of course I agree with your main point and don't really understand why you presented your argument in opposition to mine.

Interesting article although ...

I'd be curious to know from the author's pov: criteria?  What could or would constitute "evidence for the soul"?  What would suffice, what kind of evidence, could even remotely touch that?  I suggest there is or can be none.  Its like trying to show something is 'irreducibly complex' -- all that means is "I can't see how that could have evolved" (Therefore, it cannot have!).  

 

Far as I know, scientific methods are limited to the natural and physical.  Otherwise, we could perhaps use science to see whether there's a god, or gods, or an afterlife, etc.  Or a soul.  May I please submit, for your consideration -- failure of OBE to show a soul argues against a contrary view of popular focus, and no disciplinary foundation.  As such, its not a compelling question for this interesting, apparently psychologically powerful phenomenon at the outer limits of human experience.  

 

 

 

"Blackmore's data suggests ... people who experience OBEs are much better than others at naturally generating the type of imagery associated with the experience, and struggle to tell the difference between reality and imagination."

 

I've not reviewed the primary data/analysis. But based on what's presented here -- how exactly could we distinguish between a hypothetical aptitude or ability to "naturally generate" a type of imagery -- and a likelier explanation that occurs to me:

 

In those who've had OBE, certain neural pathways correlating with it (please, not 'causing it') have been established.   In others, OBE-less, the corresponding pathways have not formed.  Its much likelier/easier for a pathway already formed and present to fire again -- than it is for it to form in the first place.  I suggest the presence of a key neural pathway in those with prior OBE (vs its absence in the others) presents the simplest explanation for the data, Blackmore's results as I gather them here. 

 

 

This study doesn't approach the outlook proposed for it here, I suggest, doesn't go deep enough to do that.  Sure, it finds interesting difference between two groups of subjects.  Just not in terms of some postulated "ability" to "naturally generate" imagery of certain type (per interpretation advanced here).  

 

Seems to me, for getting at something like that -- we'd need to work only with subjects lacking prior OBE -- and thus, without any conditioning or imprinting effect from such -- upon subsequent experience (as elicited by Blackmore's design).  If a difference can be shown among such subjects, ok -- maybe there is some inherent difference of ability or aptitude for OBE.

 

Its just too theoretically ambitious (bordering on sensational) to hint "we've got evidence its just somebody's imagination." No, hardly.  No more than an opposite finding would mean someone really went to heaven.  

 

I'd agree OBE is not "evidence for the soul." But unless one defines in advance, what would constitute scientific evidence for 'the soul' -- the point is moot and empty.  It argues only with an unfounded claim to the contrary.  Rather than addressing a question that has actually been raised by skilled investigators, using methodical approaches (like Blackmore and the greater research community).

 

By same principle: recent research powerfully demonstrates the experiential reality and impact of mystical experience facilitated by psilocybin.  But it does not, cannot show -- oh, then there really is a god or whatever, and those subjects really met him.  Ideology, especially rationalism in opposition to equal and opposite irrationalism, is whiffed in taking such findings as Blackmore's results over the line of interpretive rigor and due theoretical caution.  

 

From a standpoint of rationalism or scientism, yes, the implications of data like these can easily sweep us away.  We can get fooled, starting thinking:  "Scientists have telescoped the skies, and seen no heaven up there, no angels with or without wings. Those stars twinkle in a cold, near-vacuum of space. And for all our talk of human worth and dignity, we're really just bipeds with opposable thumbs and big brains. Talk about anything more, such as spiritual or whatever, is nonsense, we now know. The truth is we're all fools, and nothing matters -- science has proven it."

 

To the familiar 'scientific materialist' (or hardline atheist) mindset, any study like this is fair game for exaggerating or over-estimating the theoretical reach of results.  But the grasp of such findings is rather shorter, I suggest, than anything so far-reaching.

 

Seems to me the line between "reality" and "imagination" (as cited herein, following quaint popular convention) is an astronomically more complex question, going beyond power of scientific methods I suggest -- than the commonplace, seemingly simplistic metaphysic: "what's real is real, what's not is not."  Rationalism taken beyond a certain point can fool itself on that level.  The widely unquestioned distinction of "reality" and "imagination" originates not in science but philosophy, especially pop-philo.  As such, that dog is no skilled hunter ...

Don't agree

This article, written about OBEs, seems to be written by someone who has never had an OBE. I understand what he is getting at, but I don't see how he comes to his conclusions. An OBE is a subjective experience in which one can validate their idea of soul for themselves. If you need a man in a white coat to tell you your ego-death or other trans-personal experiences is nothing more than your brain tricking you well... here's your guy. What is the soul anyway?

thank you JohnfromtheTemple

thank you John for the info about http://www.skeptiko.com/134-rupert-sheldrake-on-richard-wiseman-deceptio... went there and I had a very interesting reading. A little quote: "Dr. Rupert Sheldrake: Personally, I think it’s just what Wiseman said it is. I think it’s a tendency for people to see what they want to believe, to believe what they want to believe, to only notice evidence that fits their dogmatic point of view or their belief system. He himself is a perfect example of that. He accuses people who are interested in psychic phenomena and do research in an open-minded way of being fooled or of self-deception, but in fact this is the kind of thinking he’s engaged in. Basically, Wiseman is a dogmatic materialist. People who are materialists aren’t people who don’t believe anything; they’re people who have a really strong belief that the mind is nothing but the brain, that the free will doesn’t really exist and we are just robots. He tries to prove that in this book. I think it’s as simple as that. He’s dogmatically committed to that point of view. He firmly believes it. Therefore, the evidence must be flawed. People must be either deceiving themselves or deceiving others. So I think we have to see that we’re dealing here with a fundamentalist belief system of people who pretend to be scientific but are not".