Everything we have ever learned is wrong!
This is the claim of prominent stem-cell scientist Dr. Robert Lanza, the best-selling author of Biocentricism.  Lanza states that scientists have always had it backwards in claiming that life comes from matter. Such bold claims are diametrically opposed to almost all previous scientific approaches.
We must restart our theory of everything with a new paradigm, one where everything is based on consciousness. Lanza states that space and time are concepts of the mind and that death does not exist in the reality, that our entire being ends with “death,” and that, “Nothing in science can explain how consciousness arose from matter.”
Lanza claims that the Big Bang cannot explain the greatest mystery in the universe: “Why is the universe exquisitely fine-tuned to support life?”
Lets face it, our theories of the universe and physical world are antiquated and can never work until they fully account for life and consciousness as an integral part of such a theory.
‘According to Lanza, what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects. Lanza argues that biocentrism offers insight into several major puzzles of science, including Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, the double-slit experiment, and the fine tuning of the forces, constants, and laws that shape the universe as we perceive it. According to Lanza, and co-author Bob Berman, “Biocentrism offers a more promising way to bring together all of physics, as scientists have been trying to do since Einstein’s unsuccessful attempts for a unified field theory eight decades ago.”’
Let us start with Lanza’s claim that consciousness is behind everything. After all, this is how mathematics or science professors might start your semester studies. We are told up front to believe that the area of a circle is π r 2 and that the energy equivalent of matter is equal to its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light, the renowned formula: E = mc2. We accept such statements easily because of our faith in the source.
SCIENCE’S STRUGGLE TO REPLICATE REALITY
In the above example of Einstein’s famous energy formula, we have a theory which almost everyone accepts at face value, along with many other standard formulas and conclusions of modern science.
Yet, we find that Einstein himself had trouble accepting the New Physics of Quantum Mechanics (QM). While turning science upside down, QM accurately explains physical phenomena in ways never thought of previously and has held a prominent position in mainstream physics for almost a century. Yet, QM is somewhat of an enigma. Its abstract probabilistic predictions still fall short of a reliable consistent description of the reality around us and even sometimes produce contradictory predictions.
QM, while accurately predicting interactions and behaviors on a nuclear level, has introduced many novel methods of observing this reality, such as treating particle movements in terms of probability wave movements. This part of QM theory was a primary source of Einsteins dislike of QM. In relating to such hazy probabilistic predictions he stated that, “God does not play dice.”
Although disliking QM’s abstract unintuitive methodologies, Einstein and future scientists nevertheless accepted its more accurate than previously available descriptions of phenomenon. Quantum Mechanics has retained its stature as a major edifice of science ever since.
Einstein furthered the strange unbelievable predictions of QM with the astounding conception of Quantum Entanglement (discussed later in this article), which seems to defy even Einsteins very own theory of relativity.
According to the current theories of physics there are four fundamental fields by which forces are transmitted between objects: Strong Interactions primarily within nuclei, Electromagnetic Interactions between electrically charged particles, short range Weak Interactions on some particles, responsible for some forms of radioactivity and the long range attractive Gravitational Interaction acting upon all particles.
A Unified Field Theory (a term coined by Einstein) or an all encompassing theory of fundamental particles and forces remains an open field with no conclusive uniform theory. It has not been possible to bring science under such a formal and consistent system.
Even in the most prominent sciences there are disagreements and controversy. Yet, scientific theories are generally accepted as factual descriptions of reality because they mostly work and we don’t have anything better to work with. Yet, these (apparently) solid time tested theories are continuously changing — evolving and devolving — ultimately failing to describe reality accurately.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, in spite of a plethora of archaeological and other scientific evidence contradicting this theory, has outlasted it all and is still accepted and taught around the world. Rationalists have fought the fundamentalists tooth and nail to keep the Intelligent Design conception from gaining an ounce of credibility. According to the majority of opinions, we are left only with the theory of Darwin to account for the origins of the multitude of life forms.
Isn’t it better to admit that we don’t know, rather than teaching untruths? Carl Sagan sagely expresses this, “The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and it has no place in the endeavor of science.”
Although ever newer theories ‘may’ provide more and more accurate descriptions of our material world, they always seem to come up a little short and never quite explain it all. In fact information theory predicts just such limits to science.
Kurt Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem proved that there are limitations on all but the most basic mathematical systems. In essence Godel is saying: Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.
In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is the following arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.
It's mathematical equivalent is:
Gregory Chaitlin of the IBM T.J. Watson Research Center has taken this result further and shown with algorithmic information theory that mathematics has serious limitations and demonstrated that not only is there no structure to the foundation of mathematics, the foundation is in fact random. 
Stephen Hawking agrees that any attempt to formulate a Unified Theory of Forces will be incomplete — science can never give us a conclusive answer.
The ancient Vedic literatures of India concur—all living entities have four inherent defects—bhrama, pramada, karanapatava, vipralipsa. We are subject to illusion, we make mistakes, we have a cheating propensity and we have imperfect senses. These defects are that which magicians take advantage of to trick us and indeed they work well for them.
More importantly these defects or human imperfections limit everyones’ (including our most brilliant scientists’) capacity to arrive at the truth, no matter how sophisticated their techniques. They limit our scientific findings, which are little more than extensions of our own limited capacities, minds and senses — the microscope and telescope are simply extensions of the eye and our incredibly fast number crunching Cray computers are mere mechanical extensions of our minds. In science, ’seeing is believing,’ yet much is still invisible to our enhanced sense detection and many things we do see are just wrong. We are looking at this incorrectly. No amount of conceptualization by our defective mind and senses will lead to the ultimate truth.
We must find a higher authority or uncorrupted evidence — that which is beyond these human defects, uncontaminated by prejudicial assumptions and selfish agendas which we all share. This will be explored further.
In 1900 Lord Kelvin stated the prominent worldview at that time succinctly, “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurements.” This worldview was shattered five years later by Albert Einstein with his Theory of Special Relativity. F=ma (Force equals mass times acceleration), the classical certainty of physics, is not valid at the quantum level.
In the 1920’s Erwin Schrodinger developed his wave equations, which along with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle provided much of the basis of Quantum Mechanics, a revolutionary new theory providing an entirely different viewpoint of the nature of reality. The movements of particles are seen as probability amplitudes of waves propagating thru space; where observation of events define the very event itself.
LET THERE BE CONSCIOUSNESS
What this means is that Quantum Mechanics is saying that the conscious observer creates the reality, which is in essence what Lanza is stating, that consciousness is the root of everything.
Such a radical approach seems needed to bypass the stagnation and present limitations of science. After all it was Einstein who stated that, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” We have to think outside of the box of our limited brain capacity and experience. Haven’t genius’s been ahead of their time, their theories far beyond the grasp of their peers?
Copernicus barely escaped the inquisitions of the church, but the stalwart bearers of his incredible contributions to science and astronomy, Bruno and Galileo, where imprisoned, tortured and Bruno was burned at the stake for putting forth the heretical ideas of Copernicus: such as, the Sun doesn’t revolve around the earth and there are other equally important universes than ours. It seems that history has, in many instances, been unkind to some of our greatest thinkers and their uncluttered creativity.
Continuing our present line of thinking, following in Lanza’s footsteps, it seems that the most logical way to create a theory of everything is to place consciousness at the root of everything else. Lanza’s Biocentric universal model is a much lauded step in this direction. This very thing is enunciated clearly throughout the Vedas.
Such a fundamentally new paradigm is urgently needed and necessary — one which accounts for consciousness itself as an integral and essential element of reality. After all, our most advanced sciences, such as QM, have determined that consciousness shares an integral part of reality. Quantum Mechanics shows that the observer of reality creates the reality they observe by their very act of observation. Consciousness is intricately involved in the very process of QM itself.
A truly scientific approach demands that the only theories that should not be considered viable are those that have no measurable consequences and no testable predictions. One may logically then question if we truly can measure or detect consciousness? Certainly consciousness is the symptom of life, the difference between a live and dead entity is consciousness itself. This subject of consciousness has become too important to be ignored. It requires extensive investigation and as we shall see consciousness fortunately now has a prominent place amongst many scientific inquiries.
ARE YOU CONSCIOUS?
Let us then ask, ‘what is consciousness?’ Traditional science has repeatedly tried to break consciousness down to physical parameters interacting mechanically. Typically, the western concept has been that the mind is the self. Huxley believed that states of consciousness were caused by molecular changes in the brain and that the mind is a byproduct of these changes.
Our Psychological states can be influenced by the chemical state of our brain. For example, alcohol and drugs affect us and our abilities are impaired by this intoxication. When particular portions of the brain are damaged or impaired our thinking and functioning are debilitated. We experience many modes of consciousness even within unconsciousness, for example dreaming, lucid dreaming, deep and dreamless sleep. Even when unconscious our senses are working, so a kick or loud noise may awaken us from our unconscious state.
Thus it seems that we are our bodies and minds and we feel and identify ourselves as such. This personal identity is even taken so far that a dent in our car is often taken as if our own body is damaged and we react as if we feel pain. This is due to our attachment and reliance on our car much like we rely on our body and its functions to support our life and its activities. Just as we are not our car, so we may not be our bodies.
The experience of enjoyment cannot be reduced to a simple physical mechanism. Our consciousness and emotions are not quantifiable. They cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation nor truly replicated by a machine. The conclusion then is that consciousness is not measurable or detectable in the typical empirical manner normally demanded by science. Yet we cannot deny its existence, only that we have a hard time understanding where it resides and precisely what makes it work the way it does.
Recently, a Korean scientist, Dr. Daegene Song, has proven that consciousness cannot be represented mechanically such as done in Strong Artificial Intelligence. 
A former colleague of mine once long ago defeated the then reigning world champion chess master (Bobby Fisher) by using the masters own defense against him but deviating slightly in the middle of the exhibition game, fooling the master. Computers can be programmed to do all of this except think outside of what they are precisely programmed to do (i.e., think outside of the box). Artificial intelligence is still artificial and can never challenge human consciousness in its breadth of capabilities and subtle nuances, emotions and keen discriminating perceptions.
SCIENCE’S AGREEMENT WITH THE VEDIC PARADIGM
An alternative approach in the usual scientific quest to understand reality, that of considering a conscious independent non-physical self (called atma in sanskrit) which monitors the various patterns of electrochemical events of our brain and translates them into a psychological experience is not entirely out of concert.
As related previously, the well known double-slit experiment in Quantum physics reveals the interesting phenomena that the results are different when the experiment is observed than the results when it is not observed. In other words the observer creates the reality that they observe. A simple explanation of the double-slit experiment is that when scientists watch a particle pass through a multi-holed barrier, the particle acts like a bullet traveling through a single slit. When the particle is not watched, however, the particle moves through the holes like a wave, where the portions of the wave produce an interference pattern.
Scientist John Wheeler has stated regarding the double slit experiment, that in his opinion, no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is observed. “Actually, quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured. In a sense, the British philosopher Bishop Berkeley was right when he asserted two centuries ago ‘to be is to be perceived.’” 
A rather intriguing result obtained from Wheeler’s experiments is the conclusion that time has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics’ choices and that indeed the observation of the result causes the result.  A more recent experiment by French physicists even more conclusively proved that the result is still determined by the cause (observed or not) even when the particle has already passed the point of observation—its cause.  Physicist Roch stated that this result, “Really emphasizes the tension between quantum mechanics and relativity." I.e., there is a large conflict—laws of physics are being broken here and no one knows how to fix them.
It may also be argued that the observer in the QM double slit experiment may be a physical device and not a conscious device, therefore consciousness plays no role in QM. Yet we find the same results from the double slit experiment when conscious observers are thinking or not thinking about the double slit and in neither case directly observing the experiment. Thus consciousness, in addition to a nonphysical observing mechanism, does influence the result. This means that our choices create our reality. The behaviour of a particle is altered by a persons perception of it.
A paper published in the peer reviewed journal Physics Essays  describes how experiments were conducted with the double-slit optical system to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wave function. “The ratio of the interference pattern’s double slit spectral power to its single slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. The study found that factors associated with consciousness significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double slit interference pattern. ‘Observation not only disturbs what has to be measured, they produce it. We compel the electron to assume a definite position. We ourselves produce the results of the measurement.’” In other words the observer creates the reality. This means that the New Physics is telling us that without consciousness we have no reality.
This prediction of Quantum Mechanics derails our long held views of determinism and materialism. It tells us that the universe is conscious and is making choices—choices which create reality. An alternative worldview with consciousness at its root is the essence of the perspective presented by the Vedic literatures of India.
THE VEDIC LITERATI
The principle founders of Quantum Mechanics and Nobel Laureates Neils Bohr, Erwin Schroedinger and Werner Heisenberg were all avid believers in the philosophical and scientific presentation of the monumental ancient Vedic literatures of India and were profoundly influenced by its philosophy — a philosophy of consciousness.
This Vedic view is a philosophy founded on the belief in the spiritual conscious self or atma as the life giving principle of all living entities as well as the belief that the atma at the time of death of the body it is associated with, travels to another body, i.e. the atma reincarnates in a new body when the old body can no longer support it.
Careful documentation of previous life remembrances, and elimination of other viable causes, has revealed that reincarnation is the only possible explanation for remembering such precise and accurate information.  How can this information be transferred from a dead human to a now living human if not via an immaterial, unmeasurable, undetectable and invisible entity such as the atma? Our scientists cannot answer this question.
Much of the Vedic literatures have been scientifically corroborated with modern technological techniques — such as satellite remote sensing, radiocarbon dating of archaeological evidence, genetic DNA halogroup tracing of paleolithic continuity, computer calculations of dates of precise astronomical configurations recorded thousands of years ago at the time of the Vedic compositions, study of micro-fossil marine sediments and numerous other scientific techniques.
Satellite Photo & Archaeological Harappan Site Map of Former Sarasvati River Valley
It defies common sense and a true scientific approach to neglect such a plethora of irrefutable evidence of the dating of the Vedas as well as their veracity.  The Vedic literatures do not conflict with Lanza’s paradigm. We strongly believe that Lanza’s entire viewpoint supports these teachings of the Vedas regarding the existence of a spiritual life force at the heart of every living entity and the universe itself.
Before we go too far out on a proverbial limb, let us also confirm the unique acceptance of the Vedic literatures by some of the most profound and deep thinkers the world has known. In previous articles we have substantiated the lofty glorification of the Vedic literatures by Emerson, Thoreau, Schopenhauer, Whitehead, Voltaire, Oppenheimer, Lin Yutang, Carl Sagan, and many others.  The principle founders of Quantum Mechanics itself, Neils Bohr, Erwin Schroedinger and Heisenberg, were avid readers of the Vedas and utilized these teachings within their quantum theories, even stating that the Vedic conceptions helped them considerably in their scientific formulations. 
Newton is credited with his Classical Mechanics of action-reaction, a basic theory of physics, presented some 300 years before the introduction of Quantum mechanics. Here we find the classical formula for force equals the mass times the acceleration or F = ma. It is claimed that Newtons entire presentation in Classical Physics and Calculus was derived entirely from the Vedas and the Kerala Book of Calculus. Even the Serbian genius Nikola Tesla was well acquainted with the Vedas and often used sanskrit words as well as becoming vegetarian and celibate. The list of Vedic literati continues, only adding more notably famous great thinkers.
In the beginning of the 20th century, Danish physicist Neils Bohr explained how atoms emit and absorb electromagnetic radiation only at certain frequencies, giving us the formula for this as E = hv. Here E is the energy of the radiation which is the discrete difference in energy between two different electron orbital levels in the atom and v (nu) is the frequency of that emitted or absorbed radiation. Neils Bohr was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1922 for his theory on the hydrogen atom based on quantum theory. Bohr, an avid follower of the Vedas, is quoted as stating: “I go into the Upanishads to ask questions.”
Both Bohr and Erwin Schrodinger, the founders of quantum mechanics, regularly read the Vedic literatures and noted that their quantum mechanical experiments produced results which were consistent with the Vedic teachings.
Austrian-Irish Erwin Schrodinger is most well known for his wave equations which equate the movement of particles as probability waves, for which he was awarded the Nobel prize in 1933. Schrodinger consistently included Vedic references in his writings such as Mein Weltansicht and What is Life?
Schrodinger, in explaining his representation of particles in the universe as wave functions of probability stated, “The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics. This is entirely consistent with the Vedanta concept of All in One.” He wrote that, “The only solution to this conflict (plurality of consciousness) insofar as any is available to us at all lies in the ancient wisdom of the Upanishad. 
Werner Heisenberg, also in the 1920s, formulated his now well known Uncertainty Principle, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1932. The Uncertainty Principle states that when you observe a subatomic particle, you cannot but disturb that particle. Another way to state this, is that if you know the position of a particle then you cannot know its speed, or to the degree you know its speed, you cannot know its position.
This is easy to understand on the subatomic level as the photons of light used to observe this particle are of the same order of magnitude as the particle itself, so will obviously disturb it. Later experiments have shown that this disturbance extends even to conscious thinking of the particle itself. This was proven extensively under rigorous scientific controls in the testing of the double slit experiment, as stated previously above. 
Schrodinger has related in a series of discussions with Heisenberg, that Heisenberg spoke of his travels to India as a lecture guest of (the famous Indian poet and writer) Rabindranath Tagore while working on the quantum theory. Heisenberg said that his talks with Tagore on Indian philosophy helped him a lot with his work in physics, because “they showed him that all these new ideas in quantum physics were not all that crazy. He realized that there was, in fact, a whole culture that subscribed to very similar ideas.”
Even Robert Oppenheimer, lead scientist in the Manhattan Project (development of the atom bomb during WWII), learned Sanskrit so that he could read the Bhagavad Gita in its original language and stated that his life’s philosophy was profoundly influenced by it. He stated that, “The Vedas are the greatest privilege of this century.” It is also well known that he quoted the Bhagavad Gita during the USA’ first nuclear test explosion.
HOW ARE WE CONSCIOUS?
To continue with our discussion of consciousness and sensory perceptions let us use vision as an example. Images are received on the retina in the back of our eye where they are translated into electrochemical impulses transferred thru the optic nerve as neurons to the visual cortex.
Yet these neurons are binary like our computer communications. That is, a neuron is either on or off, thats all. These neurons pass thru various logic gates at the brain which receives these incoming stimuli and understand them as various images in terms of shape, color and motion similar to how our modern computers react to incoming stimuli, images and other electronic input signals and display them on the screen. Science has not as yet been able to account for how this transfer of incoming electrochemical stimuli into our actual vision of the images represented in this stimuli is accomplished by the self.
Somehow, these mechanical impulses are magically transformed into visual perceptions. Imagine for a moment the retina and also the brain as a TV screen processing these incoming abstract signals. Where then, we must ask, is the observer of the images on the screen? Is there a little man in the brain observing and interpreting these images? A computer or any machine has no emotion yet scientists still try to show that our bodies’ responses are a mechanical reaction to external sensory stimuli.
Even with the most advanced compression schemes (such as those available on our computers) our entire lifetime of recorded images, impressions, feelings, emotions, experiences, etc are normally still spread out and repeated in our brain and readily available. The display of such information in the brain does not in any way account for consciousness and the multitude of variegated responses and emotions each living entity is capable of displaying instantaneously.
There seems to have been a consortium of opinion amongst scientists in their reactionary responses trying to negate the idea of consciousness and will as occupying any significant position within science. Fortunately in the preceding decades science has finally realized the necessity and essential place of consciousness in descriptions of reality.
Although, we are not aware of how we do it, we perceive all the electrochemical input from all of our senses correctly when we are in good health. We are not conscious of analyzing these incoming stimuli, only the resultant images & impressions of these various sensory stimulations.
A simple breakdown, for example of colors into the standard R, G, B in the trichromatic scheme of Red, Green and Blue colors as short, medium and long wavelength, fails when we analyze yellow. It is formed by equal combinations of red and green, yet it is not a greenish red nor a reddish green. It is unary, not binary and this failure has caused neurophysiologists to completely revise their theory of neural processing beyond the retina. A simple binary correlation fails. This is just one simple example of how such simple correlations fail to explain where consciousness is, what it is, and how it actually works.
A red car is perceived differently when seen with regular lighting (as red), when the suns reflection glares off the car (gold or white) or the car is seen in shadow (grey). Our perception of the car’s color thus appears as totally different depending on the conditions of lighting under which it is observed. This human perception along with our emotions is difficult to quantize and reduce to simple physical parameters. Remember that incredibly memorable occasion captured in a photograph? When shown to a friend later, the miniature replica was flat, devoid of the emotion of the moment—the vitality of the experience is lost in the mechanical replica.
Nobel laureate Sir John Eccles has stated that the mind of a beings consciousness is separate from the body because a conscious will is required before neurological events take place in the brain. This would mean then that the brain is the functioning material organ and the separate mind or consciousness is an immaterial separate symptom of the living entity. But what is this conscious part? Is it detectable or not?
Max Planck, a principle architect of the Quantum Theory, who also won the Nobel Prize in 1918 for this work, stated, “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, [is] postulating consciousness.”
Theoretical Physicist Eugene Wigner also contributed much to quantum theory, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. He stated, “It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
EVIDENCE FOR THE CONSCIOUS SELF AND UNLIKELY THINGS
There is a great deal of evidence from numerous experiments, although some are not yet widely accepted sources, strongly suggesting that there is a conscious self—independent yet linked imperceptibly with the physical body and brain.
Such evidence is tangible and scientifically believable enough for major world powers to dedicate millions of dollars and scores of years in researching such possibilities and related occurrences—phenomenon which are testable and repeatable. After all, this is the golden rule for allowing the pursuit of scientific verification—the results are measurable, predictable and repeatable.
Dry scientists with little imagination may scoff all they like when they hear of this evidence, yet NASA, the USAF, the US CIA, the Russian government and even the Chinese government, to name just a few of the many, have invested lots of hard cash and decades of research to investigate and substantiate these phenomenon. We will list just a few of the phenomenon which suggest realities beyond those commonly known, beyond the mundane material physical world, the body, space and even time. Some of this evidence is from more recently declassified government documents, hitherto unknown to the general populace and some from independent research.
The primary purpose of this evidence is to shake our current so-called scientific belief system at the roots and help to shock us out of our intellectual complacency and blind imagination.
We consider as real, the paradigm of an independent conscious entity, atma, at the root of individual being and that the world itself is based on and sustained by consciousness.
Biologist’s, doctors, surgeons and other professionals familiar with the human body have mapped the particular areas of the brain to the various functions of the human body with the assumption that the brain controls these parts and functions of the body. Indeed stimuli to certain areas of the brain trigger responses in corresponding areas of the body.
Yet, there are recorded instances of apparently brainless humans functioning quite normally. A 70 year old French postman has lived a comparatively normal life of lower intelligence while his entire brain is filled with liquid with no brain matter, except for the thin covering of the brain area. Another young boy of high IQ is experiencing a life without a brain and there are additional similar cases. How is this possible if the functioning of the body is controlled by the brain and yet there is no brain matter? Something is missing here in our analysis, something beyond normal medical science, beyond traditional science. We present also examples of human-will separate from the brain.
ARE WE IMMORTAL?
Previous life remembrances of hundreds of individuals have been carefully documented, investigated with particular emphasis to avoid fraud and cheating. The vidid, clear and precise remembrances of a past life in a vast number of cases is so conclusive that there is no other explanation other than that, the individual self remembers such past life information from their life in a previous different body. 
Because the doctrine of Reincarnation does not align with the religious beliefs of a number of mainstream religious systems it has been ridiculed, ignored and outright attempts at discrediting this carefully recorded documentary evidence are rife. Nevertheless, the majority of this evidence and in particular, quite a large number of solid cases cannot be refuted nor ignored by any honorable truth seeker. The only viable conclusion is that this information has been transferred to these humans from a previous life—a life that the same conscious self has previously lived within another body.
Continuing documentation into past life remembrances is being done by a Baptist researcher who doesn’t particularly believe in the doctrine, yet feels that he cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence in support of reincarnation. Jim Tucker  has published the results of four decades of research in his book, Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children’s Memories of Previous Lives. 
Such a physical transfer of precise multiple memories appears to break the laws of physics—laws that are related to the material world. However when we accept that there is a non-physical conscious self, the life giving force for each living being, which can transfer en toto in a non-physical way to another body, then we are looking at another dimension of reality—a spiritual or immaterial reality—that reality consistently presented within the Vedic teachings. When the conscious self, the life giving atma, leaves the body then the body is simply a bag of dead chemicals. This atma itself does not cease to exist, it merely moves on to another body under the direction of a higher reality. We are not our bodies. We are the conscious living spark or atma residing within the body just like the driver of a car is not the car, but the driver of the car sitting within the vehicle and controlling its movements.
Thus we see tangible well documented evidence of reincarnation of the conscious self or atma from one body to another. Obviously some of the cases may be inconclusive. However, a vast number of individual remembrances have been so carefully substantiated that they without question support the doctrine of reincarnation. That this phenomenon is unexplainable by present day science and even violates the time-proven laws of physics, suggests once again that a new paradigm of life and the universe, with consciousness at its root, is necessary.
Erwin Schrodinger’s biographer Walter Moore writes that Schrodinger believed that, “The goal of man is to preserve his karma and to develop it further — when man dies his karma lives and creates for itself another carrier.”  The Bhagavad Gita enunciates this clearly—tatha dehantira praptir, it transmigrates from one body to another. 
This certainly shows that Schrodinger was a firm believer in reincarnation, the underlying fundamental principle of the Vedic conception. This necessitates belief in the non-physical conscious self or atma. Schrodinger is far from alone in his beliefs on reincarnation of the spiritual self, being in the exalted company of innumerable highly evolved and intelligent giants amongst humanity.
EXPERIMENTS IN CONSCIOUSNESS AND SPOOKY THINGS
Another phenomenon carefully recorded by medical doctors during life and death surgical procedures is that of the experiences of patients who have clinically experienced death for periods of time (determined by medical instruments and doctors to be showing no symptoms of life whatsoever) and then later been brought back to life. In many instances the patients were able to relate the exact procedures used on their bodies in detail and even the conversations of the doctors and nurses from the perspective of floating above their body. With their body, mind and senses completely shut down (flatlined) these impressions and memories could only have been recorded and stored independently of their “dead” body's senses. Once returning to the revived body, their self reawakened, these persons are able to remember these experiences. This points to the non-physical self or atma as the essence of the living entities existence experiencing and recording these events.
A number of respected scientists have utilized stringent standards for documenting such Near Death Out of Body occurrences, such as the studies at the University of Virginia. A number of books are available on this topic as well. [19, 20]
If the preceding example seems a little hard to accept, read on, for we have documentation on the spooky research the CIA and other world powers have been up to for many decades. Although the specific topics of research are not directly related to the study of consciousness, the results all point towards the necessity of including consciousness and other empirically invisible phenomenon within science.
LaMothe (1972) describes the revolutionary techniques the Soviets studied to influence human behavior, which included: sound, light, color, odors, sensory deprivation, sleep, electromagnetic fields, biochemicals, autosuggestion, hypnosis, and parapsychology phenomena (such as psychokinesis, telekinesis, extrasensory perception-ESP, astral projection, clairvoyance, precognition, and dream state, etc.). The LaMothe (1972) report became an aid in the development of countermeasures for the protection of U.S. and/or allied personnel. The U.S. response to Soviet psychotronics R&D programs was the Remote Viewing program. 
Amongst many other top secret research endeavors, the CIA has experimented with and documented the process of Remote Viewing, which is an investigation of an individuals ability to see objects and events at great distances. One example of this is the NASA image of the rings around the distant celestial body Jupiter, confirming the precise images seen and reported by an individual.
Research was conducted by Russel Targ and Harold E. Puthoff, the Doctors who founded the 23 year long study at Stanford University alongside Defence Intelligence Agencies and Army Intelligence. Although the official CIA report reported no successful results, the scientists involved in this research reported significant findings. “Successful replication of this type of remote viewing in independent laboratories has yielded considerable scientific evidence for the reality of the (remote viewing) phenomenon. Adding to the strength of these results was the discovery that a growing number of individuals could be found to demonstrate high-quality remote viewing, often to their own surprise. The CIA even participated as remote viewers themselves in order to critique the protocols. CIA personnel generated successful target descriptions of sufficiently high quality to permit blind matching of descriptions to targets by independent judges.” 
The well-known (amongst scientists) theoretical/ experimental/ operational program directed by H. E. Puthoff, R. Targ, E. May and I. Swann was conducted at SRI International and the NSA, and sponsored at various times by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) over more than two decades; and the program was later carried on by E. May at SAIC (Alexander, 1980; Puthoff, 1996; Targ, 1996; Schnabel, 1997; Tart et al., 2002).
This was called the Remote Viewing program, and it was a compartmentalized special access program possessing a variety of codenames during its 22 years of operation. Remote viewing involves precognition and clairvoyance, and it allows a practitioner to acquire information irrespective of intervening distance or time. The Remote Viewing program ended in 1994 and President W. J. Clinton officially declassified it in 1995.  What does remote viewing tell us? Is one's consciousness being projected to another area? Is it our “soul” travelling outside of the body to view another? What is really happening remains a mystery.
In 2004, a United States Air Force research project declassified a paper titled Teleportation Physics Study, authored by Eric Davis, Ph. D., showing that psychokinesis and other parapsychological phenomenon have been subject to rigorous research and documentation by several researchers and institutions. This declassified document details apparently successful experiments of teleportation by both the US and China and states that there are videos available of multiple repeatable successful teleportation of small inanimate and animate objects (although we were not able to locate any of these videos online). 
“The Chinese were unable to offer any significant physics hypothesis that could explain their results. Some researchers stated that it is necessary to invoke a new physics, which somehow unifies the human consciousness (i.e., physics of consciousness) with quantum and spacetime physics, in order to understand p-Teleportation and related PK phenomena. The researchers were amazed by their repeated results, and were barely able to fathom the altered ‘state of being’ that test specimens underwent during teleportation.” 
Dr. Eric Davis of the FBIS comments, "The results of the Chinese Teleportation experiments can simply be explained as a human consciousness phenomenon that somehow acts to move or rotate test specimens through a 4th spacial dimension, so that specimens are able to penetrate the solid walls/barriers of their containers without physically breaching them."
Although some of these teleportation claims are debatable, numerous physicists have been able to teleport quantum states from one object to another using entangled particles with reproducable and repeatable results, which are not debatable.
This same USAF document mentioned above also provides the physics behind the research into WARP DRIVE technology researched by the government (NASA in particular) for decades. This research was attempting to develop a physical means of traveling through a wormhole in space-time (four dimensions). The physics says it is possible to bypass the laws of physics and travel from one place to another faster than the speed of light by compressing the hyperspace in front of the ship and expanding it behind. This project was abandoned not for lack of viable physics, which is solid, but for lack of the vast amounts of energy needed to achieve the desired results. 
We have written about NASA’s research on Warp Drives and Wormholes in a previous article, In Search of Truth.  This is yet another reference to phenomenon beyond our present realm of physics and technology. There are many frontiers of science that have not even been considered, what to speak of crossed. True science is unfettered by preconceptions and imagined barriers, it is quite simply an unbiased search for truth.
There are a number of experiments that have been performed which show the will of a human observer influencing physical events without the aid of physical actions initiated by the human body. The findings of Princeton researcher Dr. Robert G. Jahn and his group appear to contradict the predictions of the standard quantum theory. Their experiments report small observable effects corroborated by careful statistical analysis. 
There are numerous other examples which can be cited documenting the influence of the mind, meditative thoughts or mere thinking upon physical outcomes. Many examples are available. Our first example has already been mentioned earlier in this article. Reproducible results from the Double slit experiment and the directly correlated effects of consciousness on these results have been carefully documented and peer reviewed. 
It is reported in the USAF declassified document on teleportation and other psychokinetic experiments, “The debate among scientists and scientific philosophers is highly charged at times, and becomes acrimonious to the point where reputable skeptical scientists cease being impartial by refusing to examine the experimental data or theories, and they prefer to bypass rational discourse by engaging in ad hominem attacks and irrational ‘armchair’ arguments… Kuhn (1970) describes scientific discovery as a complex process, in which an anomalous fact of nature is recognized, and then followed by a change in conceptual framework (i.e., paradigm) that makes the new fact no longer an anomaly… It is beyond the scope of this study to propose a complete self-consistent physics theory of consciousness/mind, which explains how the mind can activate p-Teleportation and related psychotronics phenomena. ”
This government military research document is saying that these non-normal phenomenon have been observed and are repeatable, but not explainable, by present day science. Note the reference to “theory of consciousness/mind in the experimental documentation.” 
Other psycho-phenomenon of similar nature have also been reported. The effect of positive and negative intentions, moods, sounds and even written words on the structure of water crystals as either beautifully formed or hideous has been documented by Dr Masaru Emoto in his best selling book, Hidden Messages in Water. The photos of these crystals are fascinating and very compelling. Unfortunately, it has not been possible for other scientists or independent laboratories to corroborate its credibility. 
It is claimed that tea blessed by meditative monks has a positive effect on other persons and that this is carefully documented. It is well known to this author that sound vibrations do have a profound effect on living entities of all types—humans, animals and plants.
This has been documented for musical vibrations as well as spiritual mantras. The Vedas themselves are considered written forms of the spiritual sound vibration (sabda-brahma) and their profound effect upon a living entities' consciousness can be observed with repeatable results. 
A useful aid to envisioning an example of one of these invisible influences is to consider an unlikely yet measurable mechanism. The human heart has the largest electromagnetic field of any bodily organs and it is known that this EM field also carries a persons’ emotions.
It is understandable how someone in tune with another (a well known and familiar friend or spouse) will pick up these emotions via these electromagnetic fields broadcast from their friends heart and respond accordingly. This is the scientific explanation, never mind the innumerable new-agey uncounted and unaccountable influences widely propagated and oft abused, all of which remain outside the reach of present day acceptable empirical science.
Yet, we cannot deny their existence and profound effects on our lives in many cases. Until some empirical proof can be established with new rules, such phenomenon continues to be labeled pseudo-science.
THE ATMA OR CONSCIOUS SELF
Returning to the point of this article. We wish to remain scientific in our explanation of the undetectable, non-physical, unmeasurable and elusive spiritual conscious self, the atma. We have provided sufficient credibility to the ageless wisdom of the Vedas, written thousands of years ago, prior to modern technology and the computers resourcefulness.
Bhagavad Gita describes the atma as eternal, indestructible, incombustible, insoluble, timeless and it cannot be withered. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable and primeval and is not destroyed when the body is destroyed. 
It seems that the independent conscious spiritual self or atma violates the laws of physics, yet it is not a physical concept, it is spiritual, so physical laws don’t apply, different laws must apply. Reincarnation violates the laws of physics and is unexplainable by current scientific models.
DUPLICITY, PARADOX OR TRUTH?
Einsteins theory of Quantum Entanglement (or the EPR Paradox, wherein an action nearby can instantaneously influence an action far away) developed in collaboration with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen also violates Einsteins own laws of relativity. How is it possible to transfer information over vast distances instantaneously, faster than the speed of light?
The Quantum Entanglement principle, formulated yet derided by Einstein as “spooky action at a distance,” has been verified as real and is fundamental in proving that Quantum Mechanics is an incomplete theory. Numerous experiments have yet to prove or disprove the discrepancy and apparent violation of the laws of physics found in this phenomenon.
Another example of simultaneous duplicity is Schrodinger’s Cat. Erwin Schroedingers’ Cat is likely more famous than Schroedinger himself. It refers to another paradox created by the probability wave functions of Quantum Mechanics. In this scheme QM predicts simultaneously that a cat in a box is both dead and alive. If you don’t open the box the cat is alive, but if opened the cat is dead.
This simultaneous prediction of two conflicting states is also predicted by QM in terms of a particles spin as being both 0 and 1 at the same time, that is, having a spin and not having a spin or having a spin up simultaneously as having a spin down. Both of these examples are a direct contradiction of physical states, not possible in the world as we know it with our present laws of physics.
Because QM predicts two choices as occurring simultaneously, this duality is sometimes explained away with the Many Worlds Interpretation where both choices occur in separate universes simultaneously. Indeed, some scientists propose that each and every choice available to an individual can occur simultaneously in different worlds and continue to evolve in those various different worlds.
But of what use is such a theory? What benefit is there from this for an individual who is only apparently experiencing this world? How does this help us understand our reality? P4
The idea of multiple universes may seem harder to swallow than the concept of a Vedic life force, yet Gribbin and many physicists are convinced by it. Gribbin discusses this in his phenomenally successful book In Search of Schrödinger’s Cat (1984). s11
Gribbin traces the origins of what is now called the Many-Worlds Interpretation to a lecture delivered by Schrödinger in Dublin in 1952, some five years before a paper by Hugh Everett more usually credited with the idea. However, as Gribbin also notes, quantum effects may flow into the past as well as into the future, so perhaps Schrödinger’s early espousal of multiple worlds is actual proof that time travel exists.
Of course scientists are never at rest and yet another new theory, Orchestrated objective reduction, has been put forth. We present an excerpt here from Wikipedia for the readers perusal:
While mainstream theories assume that consciousness emerges as the complexity of the computations performed by cerebral neurons increases, Orch-OR posits that consciousness is based on non-computable quantum processing performed by qubits formed collectively on the microtubules of the cells, a process significantly amplified in the neurons. The qubits are based on oscillating dipoles forming superposed resonance rings in helical pathways throughout microtubule lattices. The oscillations are either electric, due to charge separation from London forces, or most favorably magnetic, due to electron spin — and possibly also due to nuclear spins (which can remain isolated for longer periods of time), and occur in gigahertz, megahertz and kilohertz frequency ranges. The orchestration refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins, such as microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs), influence or orchestrate the state reduction of the qubits by modifying the spacetime-separation of their superimposed states. The later is based on Penrose's objective collapse theory for interpreting quantum mechanics, which postulates the existence of an objective threshold governing the collapse of quantum-states, related to the difference of the space-time curvature of these states in the fine scale structure of the universe. 
In this rather obtuse presentation, theoretical physicist Robert Penrose has utilized Godel’s theorem in assuming the non-computability of consciousness and linked this to a quantum interpretation. Unfortunately this theory is also not conclusive.
Orchestrated objective reduction is a hypothesis that consciousness in the brain originates from processes inside neurons, rather than from connections between neurons as in the conventional view. The mechanism is held to be a quantum physics process called objective reduction which is orchestrated by molecular structures called microtubules. The hypothesis, which was put forward in the early 1990s by theoretical physicist Roger Penrose and anaesthesiologist and psychologist Stuart Hameroff, has so far been rejected by the majority of cognitive scientists.
Rather than utilize such radical theories as the moderately accepted MWI or this mechanistic microtubule Orch-OR theory to try and explain how consciousness works, why not follow the path of many renowned thinkers, scientists and intellectuals who revered the Vedas and based much of their writings and research on the Vedic teachings—knowledge which has stood the test of time and remained unchanged for millennia because it is the truth?
Aren’t the plethora of deep thinkers’ understandings and profound realizations from their lifetimes of scientific research worth something?
The vast number of such men and women of superior intelligence who believed strongly in the knowledge of the Vedas have been well documented. Are our own limited mind, knowledge and lifetime perceptions even close to approaching that of the multitude of geniuses who think outside of the box — many of whom drew heavily from the vast Vedic presentation and accepted the Vedas’ worldview as their reality?
THE VEDIC RESOLUTION
Einstein wrote in his book The World As I See It, “I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.” The above paradoxes of simultaneously occurring conflicting states of being, is referred to in the Vedas by the Sanskrit term achintya-bheda-bheda or simultaneously one and different. This well-known concept of the Vedic knowledge refers to God and his energies as being all-powerful, therefore able to exist in conflicting states. It can be and not be at the same time. After all, isn’t the very definition of God as the creator—able to do anything? How can He be limited if He is all powerful? All powerful also puts Him beyond our understanding unless He wishes us to understand Him.
Even the atheist spokesperson, Prof. Richard Dawkins of Oxford, was heard to say, "The one thing that troubles me is . . . the cosmic constants" (the principles that remain fixed such as gravity). This is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that everything [physical] tends towards disorder.
Lanza tackles the question raised by Dawkins head-on asking, "Why are the cosmic constants found throughout the entire universe?" The question is crucial because these constants are "fine-tuned" to support life, yet another strong support for the concept of consciousness as the root of all.
Accepting that the conscious self or atma is the source of life for all living entities and is separate yet resides within the body of living entities provides a viable explanation for all of the phenomenon mentioned within this article, some of which have been investigated by leading world powers for many decades at the expense of millions of dollars. More importantly, these principles of consciousness and the atma or spiritual self from the Vedic literatures, are accepted by many of the most renowned thinkers of all time.
If we wish to understand reality then we need to understand the source of reality and that this reality is consciousness. However, we can’t really taste whats in the jar until we open the jar and sample it. This is real self-realization, realizing and understanding the self—who we are, why we are here and what is our purpose in being here. It is not simply pursuing the worldly pleasures of the self. Rather, self-realization is to find out the goal of life and pursue that with conviction. For when the real self, the conscious self, the atma, is engaged in its realized constitutional position, then only is true happiness found. This is but a tip of the iceberg. But we can only know what lies down the path when we tread the path.
If you found this article intriguing, you will find the recently published book, Vedic Science and History by Swami B B Vishnu, of great interest also. It gives a detailed overview of the various contributions of Indian civilisation to our modern world in the fields of mathematics, science, cosmology and philosophy.
It is our hope that this will help the reader discover and appreciate the many wondrous scientific contributions of the ancient Vedic culture of India. It is available online from Devavision.org.
1- Bob Berman and Robert Lanza, “The Biocentric Universe Theory”, Discover magazine (May 2009), http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01-the-biocentric-universe-life-creates-time-space-cosmos/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=/.
2- Gregory Chaitin, “A Century of Controversy Over the Foundations of Mathematics”, Complexity, Vol 5 Issue 5 (May /June 2000), pp. 12-21, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1099-0526(200005/06)5:5%3C12::AID-CPLX3%3E3.0.CO;2-6/abstract.
3- Dr. Daegene Song, "Non-Computability of Consciousness," NeuroQuantology, Volume 5, pages 382~391 (2007). http://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.1617v1.pdf
5- Ross Rhodes, “Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Exeriment,” http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm.
(If you find the hidden humor of quantum theory intriguing, then you might like to look into the brilliant “Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser!” Phys.Rev.Lett. 84 1-5 (2000): http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm)
6- Jean-François Roch and colleagues from École Normale Supérieure de Cachan, “Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment”, Science, Vol. 315 no. 5814 (February 2007), pp. 966-968, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5814/966.abstract.
7- Dean Radin, Leena Michel, Karla Galdamez, Paul Wendland, Robert Rickenbach, and Arnaud Delorme, “Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments”, Physics Essays, Vol 25 Issue 2 (June 2012), http://www.cerco.ups-tlse.fr/pdf0609/radin_d_12_157.pdf. Followup experiments in 2013 (Using some 685 people from six continents contributed 2089 experimental sessions via the internet) further verifying the same results: http://deanradin.com/evidence/RadinPhysicsEssays2013.pdf
8- Ian Stevenson, MD, Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation, 1987, Revised edition (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co Inc, 31 March 2001, ISBN 978-0786409136).
9- Swami B B Vishnu, “From Mythology to History”, Vedic Science & History (Bangalore: Gosai Publishers, Dec 2014, ISBN 9788192660134), p. 23, http://archaeologyonline.net/mythology-to-history.
10- Ibid., “Scientific Verification of Vedic Knowledge”, p. 11, http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/scientific-verif-vedas.html. Also available as a video: http://store.devavision.org/content/scientific-verification-vedic-knowledge.
11- Ken Wilber, The Holographic Paradigm, (Shambhala, 12 September 1982, ISBN 978-0394712376).
12- Erwin Schrödinger, Mein Leben meine Weltansicht, Mit einem Vorwort von Auguste Dick: Deutsch Auflage, Keine Übersetzung (My Life My World View, With a foreword by Auguste Dick: German Edition, No English Translation), 1st edition (Diogenes Taschenbuch, 1989, ASIN: B00LK1J0VS).
13- Radin, op. cit.
14- Stevenson, op. cit.
15- Jim Tucker, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_B._Tucker.
16- Jim Tucker M.D., Life Before Life: A Scientific Investigation of Children’s Memories of Previous Lives (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1st edition, April 1, 2010, ASIN B003J5UIRS), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Before_Life.
17- Walter J Moore, Schrödinger, life and thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, ISBN 9780521437677), pp. 10, http://books.google.com/books?id=m-YF1glKWLoC&pg=PR10.
18- Swami B G Narasingha, Bhagavad Gita Verse 2.13, www.srimadbhagavadgita.net.
19- Susan J Blackmore, Beyond the Body: An Investigation of Out-of-the-Body Experiences (Chicago: Academy Chicago Publishers, 1991, ISBN 978-0897333443).
20- Glen O Gabbard and Stuart W Twemlow, With the Eyes of the Mind: An Empirical Analysis of Out-of-Body States (New York: Praeger, 1984).
21- H. E. Puthoff, “CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing Program at Stanford Research Institute”, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1996), pp. 58. Available here: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vision_remota/esp_visionremota_6.htm
24- Eric W Davis, Teleportation Physics Study, AFRL-PR-ED-TR-2003-0034, August 2004, (AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY, AIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMAND, EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CA 93524-7048), http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf.
27- Vishnu, op. cit., “In Search of Truth”, p. 1, http://vedicsciences.net/articles/in-search-of-truth.html.
28- Robert G Jahn, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Jahn.
29- Radin, op. cit.
30- Davis, op. cit.
31- Masaru Emoto, Hidden Messages in Water, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 20 September 2005), http://www.amazon.in/Hidden-Messages-Water-Masaru-Emoto/dp/0743289803.
32- Vishnu, op. cit., “Scientific Verfication of Vedic Knowledge”, p. 11.
33- Narasingha, op. cit., Verses 2.20, 2.24
34- Orchestrated Objective Reduction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction.