Who am I? Perhaps this is the only question life
really throws at us. Maybe all our scientific endeavours are, one way
or another, directed at it. Maybe cosmologists trying to understand
the origin of the universe, biologists working on evolution or
psychologists studying behaviour are driven by the same desire to
know. Or perhaps I shouldn't speak for anyone else and only say that
for me it is this way. My scientific work comes out of the question I
am driven to ask when lying in the bath, travelling in an
extraordinary altered state or sitting in meditation. Science and
living life are the same thing and require the same commitment and
I was sitting in a pizza restaurant in Bristol
one day with a good friend and teacher when he scribbled on a paper
napkin "What drives you?" Not another impenetrable koan! I
was somewhat offended. Am I so obviously "driven"? Yes, I
rush constantly from one thing to the next, rarely rest, almost never
watch TV or even sit and listen to music. Living is working and
playing with my children, weeding the garden and cleaning the house.
Something drives me. It is all part of the same question.
So I was delighted when Rhea asked me to write
this profile of myself. Many of you may think that Rhea and I are,
academically or in terms of our beliefs, poles apart. I don't think
so. In my rare meetings with her and infrequent but valued
correspondence I have often been struck by the similarities not the
differences in our ideas. So I am glad to take up her request to write
about how I became interested in parapsychology and what my work is
about. I shall use it to try to give three kinds of answer to the
question. Who am I - a few facts, who am I - the scientific question
and who am I - the inner question.
A Few Facts
I was born in London to well-off parents who
wanted me to have the best and expected a great deal of me. Although I
was very happy as a young Tom-boy, I was desperately miserable to be
sent away at 13 to an oppressive and expensive boarding school. I was
frightened (of doing the wrong thing, of not succeeding, of not having
any friends) and bored - a terrible combination. Oxford, when I went
there in 1970 to study physiology and psychology, was a real
challenge. I was far from the cleverest there, which was a shock and
an inspiration. It was there I learned about psychical research and
conceived an enduring passion for the subject. I soon found myself
running the student Psychical Research Society and wondering why my
tutors wouldn't take the subject seriously.
After that, accepting that I would never get a
grant to study parapsychology, I found a part-time job and funded
myself through a PhD in parapsychology, which I gained in 1980 for
research on ESP and memory. It is probably for that work that I am
most loved or hated because it overthrew my prior beliefs in
everything and anything paranormal and set me off on a far more
In 1980 I worked for a few months at the
parapsychology lab at Utrecht, in the Netherlands, and after that was
awarded the Perrott-Warrick Studentship in Psychical Research to work
on OBEs. Although most people assume that I have long had an academic
post at the University of Bristol, it is not so. For many years I
brought up my two children, Emily now 10 and Jolyon now 8, and worked
freelance as a writer, on TV and radio, and as a part-time lecturer at
both Bath and Bristol Universities. Just this year, after my marriage
ended, I took up my first real job as a psychology lecturer at the
University of the West of England.
Although it is hard working the way I did, with
very little money and doing much academic work unpaid, with uncertain
status and insecure future, it gave me great freedom. I could always
follow the results of my own and others' research independent of what
anyone wanted the results to be. This, to me, is the only enduring
principle of science, which is otherwise totally open to change and
evolution, that you listen to the results of research and change your
opinion accordingly. The uncertainty of my position gave me the chance
to do that.
In 1981 I was elected to the council of the SPR,
in 1988 made a Fellow of CSICOP and in 1991 elected to their Executive
Council. If there is any conflict there it is in the eyes of the
people who keep telling me I should leave one or other
"side" of the "battle". The SPR was formed in 1882
to "Examine without prejudice or prepossession and in a
scientific spirit those faculties of man, real or supposed, which
appear to be inexplicable on any generally recognized
hypothesis". CSICOP was formed in 1976 and claims to encourage
"the critical investigation of paranormal and fringe-science
claims from a responsible, scientific point of view" and
"research by objective and impartial inquiry".
Neither organisation truly lives up to its ideals
but that is no reason for me not to belong to both and to keep trying
to do that work myself. If there is a battle it is not one I want to
win or lose.
The Scientific Work
As far as I can recall (and more of the
strangeness of memory in a moment) I once thought I could answer the
question by studying psi. I had this brilliant (I modestly thought)
theory. Roughly it was that ESP was a perfectly natural process. All
information about anything that ever happened was stored in some way
"out there". It was something like the Akashic Record I had
learned about in my fairly extensive occult studies - a world of
"thought forms". Anyone could access any of them. If you
accessed events directly it was clairvoyance; someone else's thoughts
and it was telepathy; your own it was memory. Memory was therefore a
special case of ESP. This theory appealed to me enormously. Memory had
always fascinated me, partly because its physiological basis was not
then at all understood but more directly because the best remembered
moments in my life were moments of great clarity and immediacy in
which I seemed most alive. That seemed to be what I wanted to
understand. Who was remembering whom? What is the relationship between
me then and me now? Who am I?
The theory also appealed aesthetically, seemed to
fit with my own experience, and was testable. My PhD and several of my
earliest papers were about my attempts to test it (Blackmore 1980
a,b,c). I suppose it was possible that the experiments might have
worked. It would certainly have been fun to find the relationship
between ESP and memory, refine the theory, and discover the basis of
memory with a bold extension into parapsychology. But the theory was
I found this out in two ways; not only did the
experiments fail to find any psi - leading to my increasing doubts
about the whole psi hypothesis - but my own reading and thinking
revealed that (a) the theory was not new and (b) there were totally
crushing arguments against it and theories like it.
I learnt a great deal from all of this. I
discovered the value of self-criticism. If you are lucky other people
will provide the criticisms you need and if you can bring yourself to
listen you learn from them but in the end, if the theory needs
abandonning, only you can do it. I also came across some powerful
arguments that have stood me in good stead again and again. For
example, the universe is not naturally divided into things or objects,
events or moments (It is not naturally parsed as Stephen Braude often
told me). All divisions are mental creations. Any theory that depends
on intrinsic objects is doomed to failure. Perhaps more importantly
the same thing applies to similarity. There is no intrinsic similarity
between things, only similarity for some person, animal or other
behaving system. It is for this reason that I now reject many other
appealing theories such as Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance (Sheldrake,
I also learned in this context a lesson I have
had to learn all over again in many other contexts and probably will
never fully get the hang of - that is letting go. It is so easy just
to build up more and more ideas, accumulate more knowledge, hang onto
every good idea you ever have but it is destructive. It was painful
for me to see that I was wrong but it was essential to clear away the
debris and let go. I have described the difficulty of making such a
change already (Blackmore 1986a, 1987). I hope I shall always be able
to do it again if necessary - and that it might even get easier with
So - I was no longer a student with a brilliant
idea. Stuck with a lot of failed experiments and no theory to call my
own I began to ask myself why I'd got into this in the first place. It
clearly had a lot to do with my first OBE which happened in 1970
during my first term at Oxford. I therefore went back to that
experience itself. Instead of looking to the red herring of psi to
answer my questions I tried to work out what had happened during those
few hours. It was the clarity and realness that had stunned me, the
sense of everything being just right as it was, the sense of myself
being everything and nothing. How could I begin to understand that?
I started by developing a theory, or in fact
several versions of theories, and trying to test them. This lead to my
writing "Beyond the Body" (1982) and to my many surveys of
OBEs, lucid dreams and other related experiences (e.g. 1984, 1986b).
This has been much more of an adventure than my aborted search for psi
was, or at least it has held more surprises and come closer to
addressing the pertinent questions. The long process yielded many
discoveries. Some came from other people's work, such as Cowan's
theory of the origin of tunnel hallucinations or the evidence that
endorphins lower the seizure threshold in the temporal lobe and are
released near death (see Blackmore 1993). Others came from people's
descriptions of experiences and still others from my own experiences.
I often feel that I have added little that is new beyond pulling
together a lot of previously disparate ideas. Yet I think that my
current theory of OBEs and NDEs fits my own experiences better than
any of the previous ones. I no longer think anything leaves the body
in an OBE. Rather it is the brain's attempt to construct a convincing
"model of reality" from memory and imagination when its
sensory input has failed to provide one. Like other features of the
NDE I think it requires no psychic explanation, only a rethinking of
our ideas about self in the world.
This year I finished writing a book "Dying
to Live: Science and the Near-Death Experience" to be published
in June 1993. I tried to bring together everything I have learned and
thought about OBEs, the tunnel experience, life reviews,
hallucinations and mystical experiences. It is a book I expect many
people to hate. I have tried to explain all the aspects of the NDE
without recourse either to the paranormal or to life after death.
Perhaps more radically I have argued that there was no one there to
die in the first place. It is the illusion that we are a separate self
that makes us find a mystery in the relationship between mind and body
and fuels the search for evidence that we survive death.
I expect to get many critical and even offensive
reviews but in this, as in many other areas of research, I have been
delighted and comforted to find real friends who totally disagree with
me. One such is Kenneth Ring whose theories could not be further from
mine, yet we correspond regularly and enjoy our rare chances to meet
and exchange ideas.
A final thread to my work has been experiments on
probability judgement and belief in the paranormal. It came from a
simple idea. As soon as I found myself dropping many of my own beliefs
I began to wonder why so many people do believe in telepathy,
clairvoyance and so on. I soon discovered (e.g. in a mail survey in
Bristol in 1984) that the main reason people give is personal
experience. Could there be normal explanations for apparently psychic
One might be the misjudgments of probability that
lead us to search for explanations where none is required. If so sheep
should have a poorer understanding of probability than goats. This
prediction had largely held (Blackmore and Troscianko 1985, Blackmore
1992) and, after many years, given me the gratifying sense of actually
making some progress that I never got when I was searching for psi.
I have done other research and writing, on psi in
the ganzfeld, ESP in children, the Tarot, lucid dreams, meditation and
on consciousness. If there is any underlying thread it is the attempt
to understand exceptional human experiences, as Rhea has so aptly
named them, without recourse to the psi hypothesis. I now see my early
hunt for psi as doomed to failure and my return to the experiences
themselves as far more useful.
Why, then, do I not declare myself to be a
complete disbeliever (or dogmatic skeptic), denounce parapsychology
and leave the SPR and the PA? Is it only that I love going to the
conventions and parties, or to the Euro-PA where I can argue with
friends about the observational theories or whether psi can be seen as
macro-level non-local correlations with no information transfer? Is it
only because, as was suggested many years ago, I still want to get my
"50 cents worth" in the Royal Nonsuch of Parapsychology?
No. It comes right back to this question of the
sides of the battle. For me there is no real battle. There is simply a
vast range of exceptional human experiences; experiences that terrify
or uplift us, and experiences that seem to carry mystical insights of
extraordinary clarity and realness. If the scientific method can ever
shine light on these experiences then that is what I am trying to do.
The psi hypothesis is not my favourite. Yet it
may have something to it. The recent meta-analyses appear to show
reliable findings over decades and scores of experiments. No critic
has yet undermined them (though they yet may). Honorton's
auto-ganzfeld has yielded significant effects of the expected size and
kind and as reported the methods appear superbly well controlled (Honorton
et al., 1990). They are at least enough to make me sit up and think. I
personally doubt that psi will prove a worthwhile idea but other
people disagree with me and that is fair enough. What we always need
in any science is lots of rival ideas one can criticise and put to the
test, following up the good ones and letting go of the failures. I
think I can best contribute by being both a parapsychologist and a
sceptic and trying out any ideas I can whichever "side"
anyone else might put me or them on.
The Inner Question
Rhea is an exceptional person. It is only because
I am writing this profile for her journal and not for any other than I
can feel free to write about the more personal side of the question.
For me, as I think for her, the two are not separate. I am not sure
whether this is a peculiarly feminine way of doing science, as some
feminists have argued, but it is certainly my way of doing it. When I
had the temerity, in 1986, to write an autobiography I tried
explicitly to write about my life and my science together. I wanted to
write a book that would tell others who had the same passion for the
paranormal as I did what happens when you try to do experiments on
psi. This was part of my life, connected to my loves and traumas and I
wrote that way. I suppose I should have expected the wise-cracks -
"Calling it "My Early Years" are you?",
"When's Part 2 coming out?" or even the fears "You
won't put me in your next book will you?" (Everyone who is quoted
in "The Adventures" gave their permission or even wrote
their quotes themselves.). I did not expect the review that declared
it was written in the style of pulp romantic fiction and devoid of
scientific value - which nearly reduced me to tears. Only years later
did I wonder whether the male reviewer had actually read any pulp
romantic fiction. The book itself may be embarrassingly naive but I
stand by its attempt to portray science and life as inextricable. For
me they are.
One way they are linked is in trying to live life
as the kind of creature science teaches us we are. As I understand it
it is something like this. People have evolved through natural
selection for no purpose and with no end in sight. Dawkins'
"Blind Watchmaker" (1986) has created us, intelligent and
aware, but ultimately pointless. Our behaviour is controlled by brains
that process information in multiply connected neural networks. Inside
there is nothing but those networks, no separate self or inner
homunculus. The idea of the deciding, acting, feeling self is a mental
construction built by that brain through its social interactions and
It is the evidence and thinking, not some kind of
prior bias that leads me to this view. The mysteries of memory which I
once thought to solve with psi are now on their way to solution
through the understanding of neural nets. Libet's (1985) famous
experiments on deliberate voluntary action reveal (though there are
many possible interpretations) that the sense of having willed an
action is a construction after the fact. My early thoughts on the
power of thought forms seem so much waffle by comparison. Philosopher
Dan Dennett (1991) has used much empirical evidence as well as
philosophical thought to destroy the idea of the "Cartesian
Theatre"; that mythical place where sensations and imaginings are
brought together to be seen and actions are decided upon. No - there
is no such place and no one in there.
How do you live accepting this about yourself?
Isn't it hard, cold, unfeeling and cruel? No. I think the essential
insights that science is forcing on us are precisely the same as those
the Buddha discovered when he sat under a tree with an unshakable
determination to look inside himself and see what was there. What he
saw is described in the Buddhist notion of "no-self" and the
doctrine of dependent co-origination - a sort of causeless
interconnectedness of arising events. They are just as difficult to
accept for us now as they were for people then but whether you want to
do it or not depends on whether you want to face up to the truth.
In my attempts to find myself I have tried many
things. Drugs are an endlessly fascinating route. I have long been
impressed by people, like Charlie Tart, who have explored long and
hard and given up drugs as a route. I have learned much from
anaesthetics like ketamine, from simple ordinary but ever-teaching
cannabis and of course from the hallucinogens, DMT, psilocybin and
that touch-stone of them all, LSD. But the image of the mountain is a
good one. The drugs take you up in a helicopter. You see what's there,
you may be inspired to climb yourself, but they cannot keep you there.
And it is only by climbing yourself that you discover the mountain
does not exist after all.
I have meditated for many years. I first learned
at a time when I was training in Caballistic magic, studying Tarot and
practising various biofeedback techniques. On and off I tried to
establish a regular practice and failed. But eventually, six or seven
years ago I began a regular daily practice. The kind of meditation
that appeals to me is absolutely simple, just sitting, eyes open,
often at a white wall, otherwise before whatever is there. I sometimes
go on Ch'an (Chinese Zen) retreats, mainly because they are
uncluttered; silent, hours and hours of practice from 4 a.m. to 10
p.m. interrupted only by brief work periods and meals. The silence
quickly dismantles the socially constructed self, the routine and
discipline undermine the illusion of making decisions. And what is
left? As the teacher once remarked "There's only you and the wall
and you can't blame the wall."
Meditation is only part of the practice. The rest
is a commitment to awareness in daily life. Perhaps I should hesitate
to say "I made" such a commitment for in a way it made
itself. And what is awareness? Though I teach courses on "The
psychology of consciousness" I can give no clear answer but it
seems to have a lot to do with paying attention and this leads to more
empirical questions I would like to explore one day. But attention to
what? The most obvious answer is probably "to the present
moment". This raises difficult questions about how you plan and
make decisions for the future if you are living only in the moment.
Perhaps here the experiments in cognitive psychology and the Buddhist
ideas both help. In the former view it is the representation
constructed by the neural nets on the basis of past experience that
determine decisions to act - not some central self. In the latter it
is all part of the underlying flowing process of dependent
co-origination, not the illusory self. If no-one is really making
decisions then the future will certainly happen just the same, indeed
it may happen without a whole lot of that pointless agonising about
making the right choice or regretting decisions after the fact.
More and more this is the way I live. Confronted
with choices I think through the alternatives, consider the
consequences and implications but I no longer think that "I"
have to decide for that would be an illusion. Sure enough, decisions
are made and actions happen. I might ask myself where my work is going
or what I will do next but from past experience I expect that
opportunities will present themselves and I will or will not take
them. I'll have ideas and will or will not follow them up. Commitment
to awareness and a simple practice seem to help.
I certainly have fears but again experience
teaches me to let them go. The most crucial lessons have been of
losing things I thought I needed. My theory of ESP was only one. The
worst was losing my husband whom I dearly loved but who eventually did
not love me. This terrible loss, that I fought like mad against at the
time, turns out to have been positive beyond anything I'd expected. As
a mother my worst fear is harm to or loss of my children but all I can
do is encourage them to be themselves, teach them what I can and let
them go too.
So how do you live in a world that is full of
violence and torture, oppression and just plain ordinary unhappiness?
One trick I have learned is to let fear, guilt or unhappiness be. This
way I discovered that the worst thing is refusing to be unhappy as
though there were something wrong with it. The obstructions put in the
way of difficult or unpleasant feelings are usually worse than the
feelings themselves. I have even come to accept a saying that shocked
me deeply the first time I heard it that "the best thing I can do
for you is to work on myself". It seemed terribly
"selfish" (i.e. bad) but odd things happen to one's idea of
selfishness if there is, as both science and Buddhism seem to suggest,
no enduring self but only a mental construction. It is said that this
way lies true compassion though I shall have to wait and see about
This may all seem like a huge digression, perhaps
not of direct interest to the readers of Exceptional Human Experience.
But it has been my way of taking up Rhea's kind invitation to write
about myself and say who I am.
So who am I? I am tempted to give my favourite
answer "I don't know". But even that would be inappropriate.
I - as a body, a public person and the subject of these sentences can
only answer by means like writing this essay. "I" as a
mental model can never know except by embedding models within models.
Really "I" can do nothing but go on living moment by moment
until "I" die. Whether that will be at the same time as this
body dies or before I cannot predict. I am as sure as I can be that it
won't be afterwards.
Blackmore,S.J. (1980a). Extrasensory Perception
as a Cognitive Process. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of
Blackmore,S.J. (1980b). Correlations between ESP
and Memory European Journal of Parapsychology 3 127-147
Blackmore,S.J. (1980c). A study of memory and
ESP in young children Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
Blackmore,S.J. (1982). Beyond the Body: An
investigation of out-of-the-body experiences London, Heinemann,
1982 and (1992) Chicago, Academy Chicago.
Blackmore,S.J. (1984). A postal survey of OBEs
and other experiences Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
Blackmore,S.J. (1986a). The Adventures of a
Parapsychologist Buffalo, New York, Prometheus.
Blackmore,S.J. (1986b). Out-of-body experiences
in schizophrenia: a questionnaire survey Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease 174 615-619
Blackmore,S.J. (1987). The elusive open mind:
Ten years of negative research in parapsychology The Skeptical
Inquirer 11 244-255
Blackmore,S.J. (1992). Psychic Experiences:
Psychic Illusions Skeptical Inquirer 16 367-376
Blackmore,S.J. (1993). Dying to Live: Science
and the Near-Death Experience. London, Grafton.
Blackmore,S.J. and Troscianko,T.S. 1985 Belief
in the Paranormal: Probability judgements, illusory control and the
"chance baseline shift" British Journal of Psychology 76
Dawkins,R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. London,
Longmans (and Penguin 1988).
Dennett,D. (1991). Consciousness Explained.
Boston, Little Brown.
Gibson,H.B. (1979). The "Royal
Nonesuch" of parapsychology. Bulletin of the British
Psychological Society 32 65-67
Honorton,C., Berger,R.E., Varvoglis,M.P.,
Quant,M., Derr,P., Schechter,E.I. and Ferrari,D.C. (1990). Psi
communication in the ganzfeld. Journal of Parapsychology, 54,
Libet,B. (1985) Unconscious cerebral initiative
and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences 8 529-566.
Sheldrake,R. 1981 A New Science of Life.
Los Angeles, J.P.Tarcher.