A careful reading of my books will show that I am far from a believer in all things paranormal. I have no axe to grind nor do I have any prior beliefs that I am trying to support through my writings. I am simply somebody looking for answers to what are the really big questions. In searching out these answers I am willing to accommodate any rational or logical model that explains ALL phenomena experienced by the conscious, self-aware mind, together with the phenomena suggested from our research into quantum mechanics, cosmology and neurology.
My critics have argued that I regularly change my position on things and that my interpretation of certain phenomena has changed over the years. They see this as being an intellectual weakness. I would argue that it is a reflection of my objectivity in that if I read about an alternative explanation to a particular phenomenon that makes logical sense then my own position regarding that phenomenon will be amended to reflect this increased knowledge. I call that a scientific approach to information. My critics see it as a weakness. I find it hard to understand how this can be. To my mind holding onto a belief in the face of overpowering evidence that that position is incorrect is to suggest a motivation based upon prior prejudices rather than an open and rationally consistent mind seeking genuine truths about the perceived universe.
In my books I am very careful to explain, in detail, why the results of certain experiments or “observed” phenomena suggest that our present scientific paradigm is incomplete. This does in no way suggest that in the future that science will not find answers but simply that the present scientific understanding of how the universe functions will have to adopt radically new ideas as to how nature works. This must involve a paradigm change because the present model fails to to explain in any way the observations. For example the two major modern “explanatory systems”, quantum mechanics and relativity are in total conflict mathematically. If the formulae that works perfectly well in one is applied to the other impossible answers are received. This is of huge significance because in their individual areas (the very large for relativity and the very small for quantum mechanics) both are extremely successful in explaining what happens. Yet they cannot both be correct interpretations of the whole of nature. This suggests and underlying, deeper explanation that will unite the two conflicting systems. This problem is rarely discussed by materialist reductionists (promissory materialists) who believe that modern science is close to explaining everything that exists within the material universe. An explanation for wave-particle duality has yet to be found and phenomena such as the “Quantum Zeno Effect” reinforces the mystery of the role of the “observer” with regards to the collapse of the wave function. This, in turn, links to the other huge problem facing our present paradigm and this is what Australian philosopher David Chalmers calls “the hard problem of science” and this is how the brain, which in its reduced state is made of inorganic elements interacting with electricity (both totally non-sentient) can, at some point of complexity, spontaneously “create” self-referential consciousness that seems to be both part of and divorced from, the material universe. Modern science has ABSOLUTELY no idea how this happens.
In my writings I analyse in depth the implications of these discoveries and challenges. To these I apply the subjective experiences of millions of people across all cultures and across al times, have experienced anomalies such as precognition, telepathy, Déjà vu and scores of other “experiences” that are totally rejected by modern materialist-reductionist science. Indeed not only are these experiences rejected but any scientist who attempts to explore the implications of these phenomena are hounded out and receive receptions that the Spanish Inquisition would be proud of. In this regard I refer to such brave individuals as Rupert Sheldrake and Brian Josephson, both genuine scientists (indeed Josephson is a Nobel Prize winner in physics) but both are ostracised, vilified and condemned by their fellow scientists for simply showing interest in such subjects.
Of course I am not in any way a Brian Josephson or a Rupert Sheldrake. I am simply an enthusiastic layperson. I do not have access to the real leading edge of research. I work in isolation and, as such, sometimes go off on tangents and reach erroneous conclusions. This is due to lack of rigorous academic controls. I do not have regular contact with researchers nor do I have access to university libraries. But more importantly because I am not in an academic environment I have no way of knowing if my ideas are totally off-kilter. If I was, for example, following a PhD programme I would be continually in contact with my tutors who could act as guides, pointing me in the right direction and suggesting certain areas of enquiry or the reading if specific academic papers. My approach, by necessity, has been rather ad-hoc. I regularly read peer-reviewed academic papers and use them and their bibliographies and references to follow up on certain ideas and themes. As many of you will know, in my own writings I always refer to these sources (something that many of my fellow writers in this field do not do). However because I am an “outsider” there is nobody available to temper my enthusiasm or to advise on alternative interpretations. In this regard I would like to thank one academic, Dr. David Luke who has kindly pointed out one or two technical errors in my Breaking Convention presentation. These were errors of ignorance not intention.
This is why I am always in awe of those with PhD qualifications and those who have done post-doctoral research. Having studied at post-graduate level myself (albeit in a business qualification capacity) I am very aware of just how important such training is. However, I am in awe of ALL who have such qualifications, not a selection depending upon my own personal prejudices. This is why it irritates me that individuals with few or no scientific qualifications feel free to vilify and criticise genuine researchers such as Diane Powell, Rupert Sheldrake, Brian Josephson and David Bohm (as a small selection).
We are at a time of great importance with regards to the future of humanity. We have to find answers to the really big challenges ahead ….. none more so than humanity’s role in the universe. We are fighting of conflicting interpretations of philosophy. We are at war over religion and science. That those of use who share an interest in knowledge for knowledge’s sake are unfairly vilified and attached you our fellow searchers for truth is crazy. As far as I am aware Rupert Sheldrake and Brian Josephson have never advocated the mass slaughter of their fellow human beings, their only crime is to think differently. In my opinion the present scientific community as represented by the so-called guerrilla skeptics seems to have its priorities somewhat conflicted …..
Subscribe To The Newsletter
Join the mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from Anthony Peake.