Ettinger laid the basis for my seance-spiritualist recall of dead cryonicists on p. 82 of MIS. He cites Prof. Joseph Rhine who points out certain effects are “unaffected by distance or time”. (145). Rhine, J.B: The Reach of the Mind. William Sloane Ass. NY, 1947. Ettinger write “it is at least conceivable that some quasi-material “soul” somehow inhabit and directs the body”.

Both Mike Perry in FFA and Ettinger in MIS distance themselves from non-causal action in the material realm even though quantum physics woo-woo theories prove that there is a “missing connection” in a material mechanical sense.

Ettginer point to Pr JC. Eccles , aneurophysicologist who writoe that the brain is indeed a sort of machine that a ghost could operation. ie. the mind might be a very insubstaial kind of director, . Ettinger says this dualist it “far-fetched” to him but can’t make a final judgement then refers to nutrinos and tachyons and says spiritualists have chielf erred in lanaguege. . ... The brain is an “appendage of the mind”... “future may see the mind divorce itself from the brain”... and become “pure mind”.

So here we see Ettinger has reference quantum physics, seneances and spiritualists and the brain as an “appendage” to the mind, very close to my “antenna” idea picked up from matzke. Ettinger was out ahead of this and is far ahead of today’s nano-cryonicists who fired me from cyronics-reddit for speaking this way. Reddit cryonics is obsolete.



Can you summarize J. B. Eccles in "the reach of the mind" from his 1947 book?




J. C. Eccles, often cited as J. B. Eccles due to a bibliographic error, explored the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the brain in his 1947 contribution to the book The Reach of the Mind, which stemmed from lectures at Bedford College, London. Eccles argued against strictly materialist and reductionist accounts of mind that were dominant in behaviorist and physicalist circles. He proposed that mind is a distinct, non-material entity that interacts with the brain but is not reducible to it, a position that would later develop into his dualist-interactionism.

He contended that conscious experience, intentionality, and the unity of perception cannot be fully explained by neural activity alone. While acknowledging the dependence of mental function on an intact and functioning nervous system, he maintained that brain activity is an instrument or organ of the mind rather than its source. He drew on neurophysiological evidence available at the time, particularly regarding synaptic transmission and cortical organization, to argue that there were explanatory gaps where mental influence could operate.

Eccles also addressed the implications of this view for human freedom, scientific determinism, and moral responsibility, suggesting that a non-material mind allows for genuine agency and creativity. He defended the idea that scientific inquiry itself presupposes a rational, self-aware mind capable of understanding and evaluating evidence, which he felt a purely mechanistic account could not justify.