Messages from Miscarriages

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I was browsing the forum at Gordon Smith's site (The Pyschic Barber ::)), and I came across this rather disturbing post.

I'm not sure I understand on what level it can ever be justified to tell someone that their miscarried embryo is still around them and passing messages across.

Even worse, she claims that she has passed a message from a 5 week miscarriage. Has she any idea what an embryo consists of? I just don't get it.

http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=164


i have lost three children 2 to early miscarriage 6 and 7 weeks respectively and one which i know was a girl at 22 weeks from spina bifida.do our lost children grow with us http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_question.gif my 12 year old son says he has seen a little girl running around in the house and a medium that came to the house has seen a little girl sitting on my husband and my bed . sometimes i think i feel some thing , does it matter at what stage you were will you feel your little ones . it is something i worry about because to me all 3 were my children , even though i have 4 children living and 3 stepchildren http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_cry.gif



I have passed many messages from miscarriages,the earliest 5 weeks

.......

You bet they do honey,the reason they stay around is the link of love,the link of your love and their love for you, you will always be their mummy and they know that-thats why they visit! they are always cared for in spirit until it is our time to meet again. people in spirit still want us to enjoy our life well-and dont like us grieving too much for them as that is what true love is-wanting our loved ones to be happy of course.


I've given many,many miscarriage links and as i say,had 2 myself.i am reassured all is well,not just with mine,but yours also.x heaven is perfect my dear-have no worry.x

[Zaira]

Moon,

This is shocking but I do understand the comfort some people can get from it. People who can’t let go and move on with their lives. I feel sorry for them, I really do. Instead of grieving normally they are in fact putting off the grieving process. But a time will come when the truth will dawn and they will feel like they have hit a brick wall.

[dllr]

Moon,


This is shocking but I do understand the comfort some people can get from it. People who can’t let go and move on with their lives. I feel sorry for them, I really do. Instead of grieving normally they are in fact putting off the grieving process. But a time will come when the truth will dawn and they will feel like they have hit a brick wall.

I can understand some parents gaining comfort from it as well but this kind of stuff really sickens me. This is one of the Psychic world's extreme low points. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[chillzero]

This sickens me too, on so many levels.
How is another believer who had an abortion supposed to feel after hearing something like this?

Grief is a terrible thing to have to deal with, but it should be dealt with honestly. This is one of the things that makes me so angry at Colin Fry. Did you know he was initially a grief councellor? It seems to me that he must have been a poor one to have to resort to making things up, and using that position of trust in such a manner.

The very first time I saw Colin Fry he spoke to an audience member about a child she had lost either while pregnant, or shortly after birth. It was a very shocking piece, and he was quite aggressive with her about the information he was giving out. Disgusting.

[britishpsychics]

First of all, a big hello from a newbie!

I hate it when these fraudsters use people in this way. How anyone can do such a thing is completley bewildering. And yet we see time and time again in these readings blatant disregard for the feelings of any other human being. People eat this garbage up through desperation and when they are at their most vulnerable.

Sickening to say the least...

>:-)

[Zaira]

britishpsychics,

Welcome. Does your name mean you are a psychic?



chillzero,

The sad thing in this case is that they really believe they are helping people with their fairy tales.

If someone said something like that to me, I'd think I was in a nightmare.

[britishpsychics]

No Zaira Im not a psychic! Maybe it wasnt the greatest username to use on here...!! :-\ I've used it because of a site im starting (britishpsychics .co .uk) to expose fraudulent mediums. Nothing too big, just a hobby to fill my otherwise boring daily schedule. :smiley:


Chill Zero, I heard that Colin was a Grief counsellor over at badpsychics (hello jon if you're here!)
I am as speechless now as i was when i found out. How can anyone be a trained grief counseller and then come out with so much rubbish to prolong that grief? He really is a sad, sad (but rich...) man. :sad:

[Zaira]

britishpsychics,

I've checked out your site. Good luck with it.

I think you might be right about your name, could be a little misleading.

[chillzero]

No Zaira Im not a psychic! Maybe it wasnt the greatest username to use on here...!! :-\ I've used it because of a site im starting (britishpsychics .co .uk) to expose fraudulent mediums. Nothing too big, just a hobby to fill my otherwise boring daily schedule. :smiley:


Chill Zero, I heard that Colin was a Grief counsellor over at badpsychics (hello jon if you're here!)
I am as speechless now as i was when i found out. How can anyone be a trained grief counseller and then come out with so much rubbish to prolong that grief? He really is a sad, sad (but rich...) man. :sad:

Hi - welcome to the forum.

I may have some articles for you for that site if you are interested. I'll PM you about what I already have tomorrow, and what I have in the pipeline.

Colin Fry angers me no end, as does Diane Lazarus, and I support your efforts fully in trying to expose their behaviour and lies to the public.

[lara123]

good evening everybody,firstly i think it is my right to defend myself.
farside had left a message on gordons site that hurt so many people,many people have had their proof that it is possible,farside had not quite understood what i meant,but i and many people believe it to be true,in fact i meant when they 'grow ' up on the other side.mind you,im sure you'll still be pretty horrible to me either way.
farside had a reply from a lady who had a miscarriage who had her proof ,the lady responded,and farside did a runner.

never ever will i call anybody on this site'sick' for their beliefs,so i dont know why you think you can call me so.you all have a right to what you believe and i absolutely respect that.

Obviously some of you claim us to be delusional,naive,sick,mental.in need of help etc.

send the white van over then and i'll go for a ride where all the bad witches go>:D

[vbloke]

good evening everybody,firstly i think it is my right to defend myself.Good evening. It is indeed your right to come and defend yourself.
farside had left a message on gordons site that hurt so many people,many people have had their proof that it is possible,farside had not quite understood what i meant,but i and many people believe it to be true,in fact i meant when they 'grow ' up on the other side.mind you,im sure you'll still be pretty horrible to me either way.You have to understand from our point of view, the beliefs you are espousing appear to be both manipulative of very vulnerable people and physically impossible.
farside had a reply from a lady who had a miscarriage who had her proof ,the lady responded,and farside did a runner.There were a few ad hominem attacks and it was obvious that no proof was required for them to believe anything that was said on your part - just the fact that they "knew" it was true because they "wanted" it to be true. Sadly, that's not how things really work.
never ever will i call anybody on this site'sick' for their beliefs,so i dont know why you think you can call me so.you all have a right to what you believe and i absolutely respect that.Indeed. But, when you are claiming that a 5 week old embryo (they're not called foetus until 7 - 8 weeks old) which has essentially no brain or nervous system in place. To suggest that this can then "communicate from the other side" after a miscarriage is to assume a lot of factors that are simply not present.

Perhaps if you could offer some kind of evidence (and not anecdotal, please, you might as well tell us that you have a magic pixie in your garden shed), or even, if you would be willing to give us a first-hand demonstration, then we would be willing to take this conversation somewhere.

Obviously some of you claim us to be delusional,naive,sick,mental.in need of help etc.

send the white van over then and i'll go for a ride where all the bad witches go>:DThat is one possibility, yes. Other possibilities include, honestly mistaken, telling the truth and outright lying. Just from stories on a chat room, it is impossible to tell which, but only through testing and examination will we uncover the real truth here.

[lara123]

the mess ages i deliver do not come from embryo,it is when they are 'older',i do apologise if i did not make that clear.

you are assuming,it seems to me,that people who had their proof are stupid and gullible and im totally aware that most people in need/grief are vulnerrable but why do you think i would lie?i am an ethical person full stop,a lot of what i say to people only validates what they saw/sensed themselves but again you might say it to be their imagination playing up through grief.

i believe there are many many psychics who are frauds,i've been to many myself that were dreadful,but to assume its all hogwash seems silly to me,just because you dont know,does.nt mean it cannot exist.

i think psychics should be tested,but we are on tricky ground sometimes regarding what is evidence,that can open up a difference of opinion on its own with different views coming from everywhere.

say,then,i give a reading to someone with just clairvoyance and no mediumship,do you believe in that in any way?

everybodys proof is different isnt it?what would be enough for one wouldnt be enough for another and i find so many people dont exactly understand the process what happens to us.

what farside called me is no different if i was to call him a liar too,that infact he is making this all up too and is really a medium,there is no difference,he's not coming forward with his proof that im liar,he simply cant,its only a belief,his beliefs are fine to me-honestly-but why not discuss it unstead of name calling.you see,rather strange to me,sceptics call us names and immoral etc,yet act unethical themselves.

maybe i'll invite farside along for the ride:cheesy: many thanks for your reply,i appreciate it.:smiley:

[brianp]

Obviously some of you claim us to be delusional,naive,sick,mental.in need of help etc.

send the white van over then and i'll go for a ride where all the bad witches go>:D
Some of you certainly are deluded and/or naive, some are certainly sick and in need of help and I'm certain that many others are manipulative, cynical predators who prey on the naivity of others - but the one characteristic you all share is that you are almost certainly wrong.

The fact that drugs, illness and brain injury can directly affect memory, all aspects of one's personality, and consciousness itself demonstrates conclusively that everything that constitutes an individual is a function of chemical and electrical activity in the brain. It follows that when the brain dies so does everything that constitutes that person - and it also follows that there can be no individual before the brain develops.

Of course, despite the above, millions believe that there is some sort of existence independent of the brain, something which comes into existence at conception and also survives death. Some even believe that it is possible to communicate with this other existence. Such fantastic beliefs - beliefs as far-fetched as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy - wouldn't be so way-out if there was the slightest bit of evidence supporting them. Indeed some believers claim there is evidence and even seek to demonstrate it. But when the evidence is examined it is always found to be wanting - under any sort of spotlight, examination or investigation, the evidence evaporates. And when you have a fantastic assertion with lots of evidence against and none in support, the only possible conclusion is that it is untrue.

I wish it were true - I would love to meet the grandfather and grandmother I lost before I really knew them - I would love to be reunited with my parents and with the several close friends who've died - I would love think of the unborn child my wife and I lost 26 years ago as having grown up and to meet her as an adult would be wonderful. But wishing it were true doesn't make it true. Losing a partner, child, parent or friend can be heartbreaking, but they are gone and the sooner we face up to reality and accept the loss, the sooner we get over it. Of course we never forget them and we celebrate the time we had together and the things we shared, but those people and times are gone.

Then of course we face our own deaths - our own end. There is nothing after death except the memories we leave behind and the things we've made a difference to. Yet we all know those who waste their lives in the expectation of something better after death. The sensible ones make the most of what little or lot they've got in life - there's nothing after it.

[Araneus]

but we are on tricky ground sometimes regarding what is evidence,that can open up a difference of opinion on its own with different views coming from everywhere.

Not really. Evidence would constitute an ability demonstrated by a psychic that is repeatable (meaning it happens on demand, not just occasionally by dumb luck), falsifiable (meaning that if it were untrue it could be proven as such; in contrast to saying something like "God's favourite colour is green" which cannot be proven either way), and not explainable by other means (such as cold reading or sensible guesses).

everybodys proof is different isnt it?what would be enough for one wouldnt be enough for another

Yes, which is exactly why objective scientific tests need to be carried out, rathert than relying on personal anecdotes.

[vbloke]

the mess ages i deliver do not come from embryo,it is when they are 'older',i do apologise if i did not make that clear.What exactly do you mean by "older"? You see, in order to make a sensible comment, you should really specify your terms, it reduces confusion and chances of being mistaken later on.

you are assuming,it seems to me,that people who had their proof are stupid and gullible and im totally aware that most people in need/grief are vulnerrable but why do you think i would lie?i am an ethical person full stop,a lot of what i say to people only validates what they saw/sensed themselves but again you might say it to be their imagination playing up through grief.I have no doubt that you believe yourself to be ethical, as do most other people.

We're not saying that people who have had this "proof" as you call it, are stupid or gullible, but perhaps mistaken or desperate for validation.

i believe there are many many psychics who are frauds,i've been to many myself that were dreadful,but to assume its all hogwash seems silly to me,just because you dont know,does.nt mean it cannot exist.And herein lies the nub of the problem. Every psychic thus tested or examined has failed their tests. On balance, it would appear that these powers or abilities do not exist - we are always open to new evidence, but subjective anecdotal stories are not proof, nor particularly compelling.

i think psychics should be tested,but we are on tricky ground sometimes regarding what is evidence,that can open up a difference of opinion on its own with different views coming from everywhere.Testing is simple - a clear, concise demonstration under controlled conditions that allow for all possibilities of fakery, deliberate or not - this would demonstrate beyond peradventure whether these abilities exist or not for that claimant. The results would be clear and obvious, with no need to try and force-fit anything.

say,then,i give a reading to someone with just clairvoyance and no mediumship,do you believe in that in any way?Personally, no. However, I would be willing to work with you to come up with a suitable protocol for a test in order to see if you really do have the abilities you believe yourself to have.

everybodys proof is different isnt it?what would be enough for one wouldnt be enough for another and i find so many people dont exactly understand the process what happens to us.Proof is used differently by different people, but the ultimate concept is that of unequivocal evidence demonstrating something. For skeptics, the evidence thus far does not show that psychic or paranormal abilities exist at all, we demand a greater level of evidence than most, as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

what farside called me is no different if i was to call him a liar too,that infact he is making this all up too and is really a medium,there is no difference,he's not coming forward with his proof that im liar,he simply cant,its only a belief,his beliefs are fine to me-honestly-but why not discuss it unstead of name calling.you see,rather strange to me,sceptics call us names and immoral etc,yet act unethical themselves.This is what I am offering you now - an opportunity for you to show us beyond all doubt that these abilities exist (at least in you) or not. This is not about belief, this is about truth and proof. The levels of proof demanded may be strict, but they would show, beyond all doubt, a positive or negative outcome. Would you be willing to try this?

maybe i'll invite farside along for the ride:cheesy: many thanks for your reply,i appreciate it.:smiley:Everyone is welcome...

[donnygirl]

:smiley:hello to you all
i came on to see this thread as i was directed towards it from gordons site
many opinions and statements , all of which you are entitled to.
i started the thread asking about my babies,i didn't expect such a reaction on gordons site nor on here was quite suprised
i am a happy well adjusted person who has grieved for my babies but i am not mentally blocked with grief ,i asked a question to do with my own beliefs and recieved a reply which i was happy with .it didn't bog me down
i have many beliefs and i also have a husband who respects that fact . he is skeptical and always has a answer for what happens i respect his beliefs
thank you for letting me post on here and best wishes to you all:smiley:

[Scottish_Girl]

Britishpsychics....hope you get on OK with your site. I have one I could tell you about....total charletan.

Shame about the ad banner at the top of your site though! Kind of defeats the purpose!

[Zaira]

lara123 and donnygirl,

Welcome to the forum. You have as much right to your beliefs as any of us do. I have enjoyed my stay here though I am not a skeptic nor am I a psychic. I have some 'strange' beliefs of my own. I think these good people are getting used to me and my questions. Your particular topic is a rather sensitive one, please try to share what you think and believe and allow our skeptical friends to do the same without taking anything that is said too seriously then, like me, you will gain a different perspective - not that you have to take it onboard or let go of any of your own beliefs. All our views and beliefs discussed calmly can and will broaden ALL of our horizons. I look forward to hearing more of what you both have to say. :smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

The fact that drugs, illness and brain injury can directly affect memory, all aspects of one's personality, and consciousness itself demonstrates conclusively that everything that constitutes an individual is a function of chemical and electrical activity in the brain. It follows that when the brain dies so does everything that constitutes that person - and it also follows that there can be no individual before the brain develops.

i think you are failing to differentiate between cause and association. Just because we have chemical and electrical activity in our bodies doesn't mean that they are the cause of our actions, rather they are the vehicle for our actions. we would not be able to live without neuro-chemical impulses, but these things would have no purpose and would not be used if there wasn't a person there in the first place.

Where did nerves and hormones come from?

[Zaira]

vbloke,

"What exactly do you mean by "older"? You see, in order to make a sensible comment, you should really specify your terms, it reduces confusion and chances of being mistaken later on."

It's the same as anyone talking about their particular field, you won't understand a lot of the terminology unless you have been willing to explore their field.

I'm sure if you bear with lara123 all will become clear from her perspective and then you can comment on what she believes. :smiley:

[Zaira]

People, it's all to do with energy. All we are is energy. Whose to say there is not a connection between different aspects of the same kind of energy and particles coming from a particular (loving) source? ;)

[Zaira]

Skeptics were a group of philosophers whose main idea was that we can't really know anything for certain about the world around us, or about ourselves. Some of these ideas came from Socrates, who also thought that the wisest man is the one who realizes that he doesn’t know anything.

Skepticism really began with Pyrrhon (about 365-270 B.C.) and was continued by Pyrrhon's student Timon (about 320-230 B.C.).

You might say, if we can't really know anything, why bother studying philosophy at all?

Skeptics said the real point was not to worry about things they couldn't know or didn't have enough information to decide. Instead, people should relax and let go. If you couldn't know, then there wasn't any point in worrying about it. You should leave it in the hands of the gods.

Some people think that this Skeptical attitude might be wrong. We can't simply bury our heads in the sand. And we don't always need or trust the scientific proof they speak of.

Pyrrhon himself did not write down any of his ideas, so we don't know as much about the Skeptics as we would like to. But we do know that most people forgot about Skepticism after about 100 years, it turned out to be no more or less a successful philosophy than spiritualism. We will believe what we want to believe and what we believe tends to become our reality.

:smiley:

[Dr B]

i think you are failing to differentiate between cause and association. Just because we have chemical and electrical activity in our bodies doesn't mean that they are the cause of our actions, rather they are the vehicle for our actions.

Ahhhhhh that old one.....well, the problem is electrochemcal events occur before, in time, associated cognitive states which a casual account predicts but a mere 'associative' one does not.

So on balance...that argument is stuffed! 8)

[donnygirl]

hello zaira
thanks for the welcome i enjoy a good discussion as much as anyone at the moment i am busy reading some of the threads and posts and if would be ok with you all i would like to comment at some point
see you all later off to do some reading :wavey:

[Shirley]

Skeptics said the real point was not to worry about things they couldn't know or didn't have enough information to decide. Instead, people should relax and let go. If you couldn't know, then there wasn't any point in worrying about it. You should leave it in the hands of the gods.



Kind of a bit of a contradiction isn't it? I mean, how could they know there were gods to leave things in the hands of?

[Araneus]

It's the same as anyone talking about their particular field, you won't understand a lot of the terminology unless you have been willing to explore their field.

Ahem...

People, it's all to do with energy. All we are is energy. Whose to say there is not a connection between different aspects of the same kind of energy and particles coming from a particular (loving) source?

Might want to follow your own advice there ;). The word "energy" has a precise scientific meaning and has nothing to do with the superstitious use of the term by woos.

but these things would have no purpose and would not be used if there wasn't a person there in the first place.

No they wouldn't. So what? If nerves did not exist we would not be here to have this discussion, so the fact that they do exist proves nothing.

This is known as the anthropic principle: simply put, anything we observe in the universe must be consistent with our own ability to exist, otherwise we would not exist and would not be here to observe it. Therefore, there can be nothing unusual or amazing about the fact that the universe supports our existence.

Where did nerves and hormones come from?They evolved from more primitive structures through the process of natural selection, mutation and heredity (otherwise known as Darwinian evolution).

[Shirley]

People, it's all to do with energy. All we are is energy. Whose to say there is not a connection between different aspects of the same kind of energy and particles coming from a particular (loving) source? ;)


Theoretically this sounds wonderful. But you don't really know thats the case and a lot of people think there is and end up being completely wrong about things - surely the energy that you are talking about wouldn't "tell" people wrong things?

[Tin Lizzie]

And herein lies the nub of the problem. Every psychic thus tested or examined has failed their tests. On balance, it would appear that these powers or abilities do not exist - we are always open to new evidence, but subjective anecdotal stories are not proof, nor particularly compelling.
This is what I am offering you now - an opportunity for you to show us beyond all doubt that these abilities exist (at least in you) or not. This is not about belief, this is about truth and proof. The levels of proof demanded may be strict, but they would show, beyond all doubt, a positive or negative outcome.

Hello :smiley:

ah, that age-old debate-starter: 'prove it!'

There are examples, and Gordon Smith is one of them, of 'proven' telepathic ability. A friend of mine has participated in a similar study, and more recently the MOD carried out a controlled study on soldiers returning from active service in Afghanistan, which strongly indicated, and did nothing to disprove, that soldiers spending a long time on the front-line developed the ability to know when they were being watched.
As far as i am aware they are looking at 'sub-atomic particles' as being the mechanism for this.

The term 'prove beyond reasonable doubt' leads to the question of where and when do we reach the point of 'reasonable doubt' and who has the authority to dictate where this point exists. For example in a court of law, the jury may be 99% certain that the accused is guilty, but if they cannot prove it 'beyond reasonable doubt' then the accused goes free.

There are many examples of fraudulent psychics and mediums, but given the numerous incidences of...no pun intended...'incredible' accuracy from mediums such as Gordon Smith and Martin Fry, where they have no prior knowledge of the living person they are talking to yet are able to provide details of which only close friends or relatives (deceased or otherwise) would be aware, how can you say, beyond reasonable doubt, that psychics and mediums have failed their tests?

maybe it is the testing methodolgy that is behind the times?

[Tin Lizzie]

They evolved from more primitive structures through the process of natural selection, mutation and heredity (otherwise known as Darwinian evolution).

*coughs*

so what was there at the beginning? a lump of flesh and blood without any nervous tissue?

my point is, just because our physical body relies on our nerves and hormones, does not mean that our consciousness dies when they do. If anyone actually has any proof that we feel absolutely nothing when we die, myself and millions of others would love to see it.

[Tin Lizzie]

Ahhhhhh that old one.....well, the problem is electrochemcal events occur before, in time, associated cognitive states which a casual account predicts but a mere 'associative' one does not.

So on balance...that argument is stuffed! 8)

;D not so fast with those shades!

on balance, are you saying that we do not think for ourselves, that as you write you and your thoughts are being controlled by the substance within you?

pass those shades here. thanks 8)

[Araneus]

so what was there at the beginning? a lump of flesh and blood without any nervous tissue?

Bacteria, mostly.

If you are asking about the origin of life itself (biogenesis), then my understanding is that this is not yet known, but I am not an evolutionary biologist so you had better ask somebody who is for a proper answer.

my point is, just because our physical body relies on our nerves and hormones, does not mean that our consciousness dies when they do. If anyone actually has any proof that we feel absolutely nothing when we die, myself and millions of others would love to see it.Of course this is not proven, and nobody here is claiming that it has been. However, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence is that conscious experience is caused directly by the electrochemical activity in the brain, and the most sensible conclusion from this is that consciousness ceases when the brain does.

on balance, are you saying that we do not think for ourselves, that as you write you and your thoughts are being controlled by the substance within you?I don't know if Dr B is saying this, but this is certainly (a simplification of) my view FWIW.

[Tin Lizzie]

[quote=Araneus;17670]Bacteria, mostly.

If you are asking about the origin of life itself (biogenesis), then my understanding is that this is not yet known, but I am not an evolutionary biologist so you had better ask somebody who is for a proper answer.

Of course this is not proven, and nobody here is claiming that it has been. However, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence is that conscious experience is caused directly by the electrochemical activity in the brain, and the most sensible conclusion from this is that consciousness ceases when the brain does.

quote]

Oh no...we're all robots after all :sad:

well i'm sure that if i did ask an evolutionary biologist about the birth of life then they would be able to give me a brilliant explanation from an evolutionary bilogist's point of view.

Could you please provide me with a link to some evidence that EC activity actually causes consciousness?

On that final point, yes consciousness does cease within the physical body; this does not mean that our awareness ends there. I mean, smoking may cause cancer, but you can get cancer without smoking (that's a simile by the way) O0

[vbloke]

Hello :smiley:

ah, that age-old debate-starter: 'prove it!'It is age old because it is the most valid - you make an unsubstantiated claim, I say prove it.

There are examples, and Gordon Smith is one of them, of 'proven' telepathic ability. A friend of mine has participated in a similar study, and more recently the MOD carried out a controlled study on soldiers returning from active service in Afghanistan, which strongly indicated, and did nothing to disprove, that soldiers spending a long time on the front-line developed the ability to know when they were being watched.
As far as i am aware they are looking at 'sub-atomic particles' as being the mechanism for this.Gordon Smith is well known as using cold reading techniques - I would say his "proven" technique is as valid as a three pound coin - false and worthless.

As for your other example, I suppose it'd be too much to ask for evidence of this? An please don't start on the "subatomic particles" track - it's only a stone's throw to "quantum" and that way I know you're talking rubbish.

The term 'prove beyond reasonable doubt' leads to the question of where and when do we reach the point of 'reasonable doubt' and who has the authority to dictate where this point exists. For example in a court of law, the jury may be 99% certain that the accused is guilty, but if they cannot prove it 'beyond reasonable doubt' then the accused goes free.That works well in a court of law, where there may be shades of truth. In science, it doesn't work that way - you are making scientific claims, so you must abide by scientific rules, not the ones that govern the law of a particular country.

There are many examples of fraudulent psychics and mediums, but given the numerous incidences of...no pun intended...'incredible' accuracy from mediums such as Gordon Smith and Martin Fry, where they have no prior knowledge of the living person they are talking to yet are able to provide details of which only close friends or relatives (deceased or otherwise) would be aware, how can you say, beyond reasonable doubt, that psychics and mediums have failed their tests?"incredible" accuracy? Time and again, it can be shown that these people use cold reading techniques. I would pit someone like Banachek or Derren Brown against any of your "incredible" psychics and I would pay good money against the result.

maybe it is the testing methodolgy that is behind the times?Or perhaps it is the fact that there is simply nothing there to test...

[bindeweede]

[quote=Araneus;17670]Bacteria, mostly.

If you are asking about the origin of life itself (biogenesis), then my understanding is that this is not yet known, but I am not an evolutionary biologist so you had better ask somebody who is for a proper answer.

Of course this is not proven, and nobody here is claiming that it has been. However, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence is that conscious experience is caused directly by the electrochemical activity in the brain, and the most sensible conclusion from this is that consciousness ceases when the brain does.

quote]

Oh no...we're all robots after all :sad:

well i'm sure that if i did ask an evolutionary biologist about the birth of life then they would be able to give me a brilliant explanation from an evolutionary bilogist's point of view.

Could you please provide me with a link to some evidence that EC activity actually causes consciousness?

On that final point, yes consciousness does cease within the physical body; this does not mean that our awareness ends there. I mean, smoking may cause cancer, but you can get cancer without smoking (that's a simile by the way) O0

Could you explain for me the difference between "consciousness" and "awareness" please?

Also, I thought a simile was something like, "as daft as a brush", or "like a fish out of water". That's what my Chambers dictionary comes up with anyway.

[chillzero]

Skeptics said the real point was not to worry about things they couldn't know or didn't have enough information to decide. Instead, people should relax and let go. If you couldn't know, then there wasn't any point in worrying about it. You should leave it in the hands of the gods.



Kind of a bit of a contradiction isn't it? I mean, how could they know there were gods to leave things in the hands of?

What skeptic ever said that? Can you provide a link?

[Araneus]

Could you please provide me with a link to some evidence that EC activity actually causes consciousness?

The best evidence I know is Libet's experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet). These suggested that what was perceived by subjects as an act of conscious decision-making was actually the result of electrochemical activity taking place in the brain up to half a second earlier. Although this does not prove that the brain activity is the cause of the decision, it does prove that the decision is not the cause of the brain activity (because a cause cannot happen after its result).

[brianp]

i think you are failing to differentiate between cause and association. Just because we have chemical and electrical activity in our bodies doesn't mean that they are the cause of our actions, rather they are the vehicle for our actions. we would not be able to live without neuro-chemical impulses,

It is quite easy to demonstrate that electrical and chemical activity in the brain cause sensation, emotion, consciousness etc because it is possible to simulate sensation and emotion and to affect consciousness by electrical and/or chemical intervention.

but these things would have no purpose and would not be used if there wasn't a person there in the first place. What makes you think there is a purpose?

Where did nerves and hormones come from?Does this have any relevance to this discussion. Hormones are chemical messengers and nerves are cable-like structures which carry sensory signals to the brain and stimulatory signals from the brain to muscles and glands. Both are present in quite simple forms of life - even plants use hormones - and both have evolved along with the rest of our bodies to become essential and integral features of human beings.

[brianp]

Could you explain for me the difference between "consciousness" and "awareness" please?
You beat me to it - I'd already formulated the same question in my mind in exactly the same words. Oh dear! Are we psychic? ;D

But seriously, no matter how hard I try I can see no difference between awareness and consciousness.

Also, I thought a simile was something like, "as daft as a brush", or "like a fish out of water". That's what my Chambers dictionary comes up with anyway.You're right - I suspect that TL meant "analogy".

[bindeweede]

You beat me to it - I'd already formulated the same question in my mind in exactly the same words. Oh dear! Are we psychic? ;D

But seriously, no matter how hard I try I can see no difference between awareness and consciousness.

You're right - I suspect that TL meant "analogy".

brianp

I'm definitely getting a psychic feeling here. Where you live... I'm getting a letter ......G Ga..........Gateshead. Am I right?

And your career.......I'm getting S.........no, it's a T.........Te.......
.....could it be "teacher"?

So, tell me I'm wrong........:cheesy:

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

good evening everybody

Good evening and welcome to UK Skeptics, where opinions are't respected, but people, facts and truth are. :-)

,firstly i think it is my right to defend myself.

Yes, you are entitled to a right to attempt to explain your opinion or belief.

farside had left a message on gordons site that hurt so many people,many people have had their proof that it is possible,farside had not quite understood what i meant,but i and many people believe it to be true,in fact i meant when they 'grow ' up on the other side.mind you,im sure you'll still be pretty horrible to me either way.

I'm not being horrible to you and don't plan to be. In fact on that thread I apologised if my post was too blunt for some. I found it unacceptable back then and still do, that a claim which cannot possibly in any way to be true, was being made that concerned the ability to talk to embryos. The fact you claim to have communicated with a 5 week miscarried embryo can only be interpreted as a lie.

farside had a reply from a lady who had a miscarriage who had her proof ,the lady responded,and farside did a runner.

Well, I don't check Gordon Smith's forum every night and I certainly wasn't getting peace and love back from the forum members over there. What proof do you speak of? I struggle to think of a protocol which could test what you claim you can do - speak to a grown up embryo or whatever.

never ever will i call anybody on this site'sick' for their beliefs,so i dont know why you think you can call me so.you all have a right to what you believe and i absolutely respect that.

I called you 'sick'? Not really, I said I didn't know how you could live with yourself.

Obviously some of you claim us to be delusional,naive,sick,mental.in need of help etc.

send the white van over then and i'll go for a ride where all the bad witches go

You are either deliberately deluding others or you are experiencing delusions yourself. There isn't really any other explanation. As has been mentioned elsewhere here, if you can provide any evidence as to your ability, then it is most welcome here and will be looked at in a critical and professional way.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

maybe i'll invite farside along for the ride:cheesy: many thanks for your reply,i appreciate it.:smiley:

I'll need to ask my wife first about that.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Oh no...we're all robots after all :sad:


Well, essentially we are biological machines whether you like it or not.

[brianp]

brianp

I'm definitely getting a psychic feeling here. Where you live... I'm getting a letter ......G Ga..........Gateshead. Am I right?

And your career.......I'm getting S.........no, it's a T.........Te.......
.....could it be "teacher"?

So, tell me I'm wrong........:cheesy:

Amazing! So it'll be psychicbindeweede from now on. ;D.

[bindeweede]

Amazing! So it'll be psychicbindeweede from now on. ;D.

No! I'm going for the "Mystic" prefix;D I don't know if you can alter your username. I will contact JJ.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

No! I'm going for the "Mystic" prefix;D I don't know if you can alter your username. I will contact JJ.

Next thing you'll be wanting to edit your posts...... >:-)

[bindeweede]

Next thing you'll be wanting to edit your posts...... >:-)

I am not clever enough to do that, although it could possibly be that other people are......in a kind, loving and helpful way, of course.;D

Love and Light.

[Tin Lizzie]

[quote=vbloke;17672]
"incredible" accuracy? Time and again, it can be shown that these people use cold reading techniques. I would pit someone like Banachek or Derren Brown against any of your "incredible" psychics and I would pay good money against the result.

[quote]

steady on there nelly.

don't you know the difference between a psychic and a medium/

Given this glaring lack of basic understanding, all of your previous statements, and i am sure you will acknowledge this in your own purely logical way, must be discarded as utter rubbish.

pass that dustbin over please...ta.O0

[Tin Lizzie]

The best evidence I know is Libet's experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet). These suggested that what was perceived by subjects as an act of conscious decision-making was actually the result of electrochemical activity taking place in the brain up to half a second earlier. Although this does not prove that the brain activity is the cause of the decision, it does prove that the decision is not the cause of the brain activity (because a cause cannot happen after its result).

This is a good one. however we are talking about an act, which would obviously need to be thought about first. act=result, decision to act=cause, EC activity = medium.

Still, non of this explains how spirits may contact us. I don't think that scientific proof of the spirit world will come in my lifetime, but i can live in hope - not that i need it anyhow.:smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

What makes you think there is a purpose?



what makes you think there isn't one?

[Tin Lizzie]

You're right - I suspect that TL meant "analogy".

whooops-a-daisy, you're both right there chaps. my bad.::)

[Tin Lizzie]

Well, essentially we are biological machines whether you like it or not.

well, essentially there is more to this world and this universe than you will ever know in your lifetime. be happy though, you are in for a lovely surprise when you die :smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

It is age old because it is the most valid - you make an unsubstantiated claim, I say prove it.


I prefer the Popperian approach; I make a claim based on what I have seen with my own eyes, I say you disprove it.

[brianp]

what makes you think there isn't one?

A lack of evidence.

[donnygirl]

how can you say that....surely everyone is entitled to there own opinion
isn't that what you are all about

[brianp]

I prefer the Popperian approach; I make a claim based on what I have seen with my own eyes, I say you disprove it. Anecdotal evidence is of no value whatsoever and is certainly no basis for any sort of claim.

Karl Popper's contribution to science was the principle that an hypothesis can only be considered scientific if it is falsifiable. I think he would be disgusted to have his name linked with your clap-trap.

[brianp]

how can you say that....surely everyone is entitled to there own opinion
isn't that what you are all about

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts." [Daniel Patrick Moynihan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan) (1927-2003)]

[donnygirl]

what are your facts then if this is an open minded forum you won't mind me asking:smiley:

[brianp]

well, essentially there is more to this world and this universe than you will ever know in your lifetime. be happy though, you are in for a lovely surprise when you die :smiley:

A lovely surprise? I can't think of anything worse than eternity with a bunch of believers saying "I told you so". >:-)

But you are correct in saying that there is more to this world and this universe than I will ever know in my lifetime. I only know a tiny fraction of what is known now by the scientific community as a whole - and long after I'm dead and gone scientific and technological advances will continue to reveal more and more.

[brianp]

what are your facts then if this is an open minded forum you won't mind me asking:smiley:

I don't mind you asking, but "your facts" doesn't make any sense either. Facts are facts - they aren't mine or yours, or anyones.

[donnygirl]

shake of hands
you have your thoughts i have mine
so can i ask ? why don't mine make any sense?

[vbloke]

steady on there nelly.

don't you know the difference between a psychic and a medium/

Given this glaring lack of basic understanding, all of your previous statements, and i am sure you will acknowledge this in your own purely logical way, must be discarded as utter rubbish.

pass that dustbin over please...ta.O0I am fully aware of the difference between the two. It is, however, irrelevant to this discussion, as both have no evidence behind them, so both are equally as improbable, ad hominems notwithstanding.

[Tin Lizzie]

I am fully aware of the difference between the two. It is, however, irrelevant to this discussion, as both have no evidence behind them, so both are equally as improbable, ad hominems notwithstanding.

::) well have you been living under a rock your whole life?

One mark of a good scientist is the ability to know where to look for evidence. You clearly have not seen a psychic or medium in action, and until you do your arguments are merely opinion and therefore they carry no weight whatsoever.

Have you ever seen a neutron? :-*:-*:-*

[Tin Lizzie]

A lack of evidence.

Based on the lack of evidence, you are clearly incapable of thinking for yourself.

[Tin Lizzie]

Karl Popper's contribution to science was the principle that an hypothesis can only be considered scientific if it is falsifiable. I think he would be disgusted to have his name linked with your clap-trap.

Karl Popper's contribution was the principle that the strongest theory is that which could not be falsified.

Have you come across any of the work done by Faraday, Hooke et al. on the afterlife? I think these outstanding old scientists would be disgusted with your 'we know better' attitude.

[vbloke]

::) well have you been living under a rock your whole life?

One mark of a good scientist is the ability to know where to look for evidence. You clearly have not seen a psychic or medium in action, and until you do your arguments are merely opinion and therefore they carry no weight whatsoever.

Have you ever seen a neutron? :-*:-*:-*Resorting to ad hominem attacks will win you little sympathy here - we've seen it all before.

For your information, I have seen both in action before and been thoroughly unimpressed by both.

As for seeing a neutron, yes I have. I suggest you look up CERN and the excellent work they have been doing there.

Based on the lack of evidence, you are clearly incapable of thinking for yourself.Ooh, another ad hominem. This is getting tiresome and predictable.

Karl Popper's contribution was the principle that the strongest theory is that which could not be falsified.

Have you come across any of the work done by Faraday, Hooke et al. on the afterlife? I think these outstanding old scientists would be disgusted with your 'we know better' attitude.Just because a scientist believes in something, does not make it correct. They also believed in the luminiferous ether, a theory that was found to be false. An appeal to authority (in this case, Hooke, Faraday, et al) won't work here either.

You either need to sharpen up your debating tactics, or find somewhere else to throw your poorly constructed arguments - they will find no quarter here.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

You clearly have not seen a psychic or medium in action, and until you do your arguments are merely opinion and therefore they carry no weight whatsoever.



Not only have we seen these people in action, but we fully understand the techniques they use.

Psychics and mediums are definately not an argument in favour of psychic ability - their methods are easily exposed.

If you could give us an example of a psychic or medium who you believe is convincing, that may help.

[Tin Lizzie]

[quote=vbloke;17728]Just because a scientist believes in something, does not make it correct. They also believed in the luminiferous ether, a theory that was found to be false. An appeal to authority (in this case, Hooke, Faraday, et al) won't work here either.

[quote]

::)your closed-mindedness is the only thing tiresome around here. Far from an appeal to authority (which incidentally seems to be your preferred modus operandi) i was referring to scientific experiments carried out by the aforementioned people, which were controlled, repeatable and which demonstrated the existence of the spirit world.
I offer my condolences to you on the matter of these 'ad hominems'.

Given the visual evidence we have of the frequent accuracy of Gordon Smith et al in their mediumship, I find your persistent refusal to acknowledge their ability a little puzzling.

[Tin Lizzie]

Farside - regarding your last, I have already given examples of mediums with outstanding ability to pass on message from the spirit world. If you understand the mechanisms by which this occurs then congratulations, you have scientifically verified the existence of the spirit world. Can you share with me please?

[vbloke]

::)your closed-mindedness is the only thing tiresome around here. Far from an appeal to authority (which incidentally seems to be your preferred modus operandi) i was referring to scientific experiments carried out by the aforementioned people, which were controlled, repeatable and which demonstrated the existence of the spirit world.
I offer my condolences to you on the matter of these 'ad hominems'.

Given the visual evidence we have of the frequent accuracy of Gordon Smith et al in their mediumship, I find your persistent refusal to acknowledge their ability a little puzzling.The fact that these experiments are no longer conducted and have fallen into history goes a long way to show that they aren't considered accurate or show any evidence of the afterlife, otherwise, they would have been thoroughly probed and expanded upon by now and would still be making headlines today. The fact that they're not speaks volumes about them.

As for the "closed minded" gambit you seem so keen on, I would be more than happy to acknowledge the existence of an afterlife, psychics, mediums or any paranormal ability, but there is no evidence that such things exist that is reliable or replicable.

As for Gordon Smith, your "visual evidence" is not worth scientific scrutiny, as all I can find are heavily edited TV shows - hardly rigorous scientific tests.

The fact that he chooses to persue the path he has, rather than offer proof in scientific circles that would prove the existence of an afterlife once and for all, speaks volumes about his agenda,

[vbloke]

Farside - regarding your last, I have already given examples of mediums with outstanding ability to pass on message from the spirit world. If you understand the mechanisms by which this occurs then congratulations, you have scientifically verified the existence of the spirit world. Can you share with me please?You have offered Gordon Smith as your prime example - a man who uses regular cold reading techniques - as your evidence. This, if anything, goes a long way to actually disprove the fact that there is anything there, as he clearly uses trickery and guesswork to achieve his results.

[Tin Lizzie]

The fact that these experiments are no longer conducted and have fallen into history goes a long way to show that they aren't considered accurate or show any evidence of the afterlife, otherwise, they would have been thoroughly probed and expanded upon by now and would still be making headlines today. The fact that they're not speaks volumes about them.

As for the "closed minded" gambit you seem so keen on, I would be more than happy to acknowledge the existence of an afterlife, psychics, mediums or any paranormal ability, but there is no evidence that such things exist that is reliable or replicable.

As for Gordon Smith, your "visual evidence" is not worth scientific scrutiny, as all I can find are heavily edited TV shows - hardly rigorous scientific tests.

The fact that he chooses to persue the path he has, rather than offer proof in scientific circles that would prove the existence of an afterlife once and for all, speaks volumes about his agenda,

Well on that first point, the fact that these experiments are no longer conducted owes much to the revulsion of the religiously-orientated society at the time, as well as the fact that a deliberate smear campaign was orchestrated against Hooke (after he had died of course).

Gordon Smith and others are only human, and of course TV shows are edited otherwise we would spend hours waiting for messages to materialise. He for one has actually taken part in scientific studies.

Where interests collide there will always be moments of heated debate, so i am glad to engage in fair discussion. I am unaware of the meaning of hot and cold reading & would be grateful if anyone could provide linkies. T the moment i am very interested in Ronald Pearson's work on sub-atomic particles & creation/annihilation.

[Araneus]

This is a good one. however we are talking about an act, which would obviously need to be thought about first. act=result, decision to act=cause, EC activity = medium.

No, we are talking about a decision to act, not the act itself. Obviously the EC activity would come before the act itself, but the surprising result in Libet's experiment was that the EC activity also came before the decision to act.

This means that the decision to act cannot be the cause, because it happens too late.

Still, non of this explains how spirits may contact us.It's not intended to. Since there is no scientific definition of "spirits", no scientific evidence that they exist, and no scientific evidence that they can contact us, there is no need for such an explanation.

Gordon Smith and others are only human, and of course TV shows are edited otherwise we would spend hours waiting for messages to materialise. He for one has actually taken part in scientific studies.Let's see the links to those "scientific studies" then. TV shows (edited or otherwise) are not scientific evidence, end of story.

[Tin Lizzie]

No, it's not the end of the story.

Life came along well before science (i am a science teacher btw, just so you don't take me for some kind of hippy) and it will carry on regardless of scientific progress.

You are right, there is no need for scientific evidence of the spirit world, many of us know it is there without needing science. Just as I do not need science to tell me that if I jump off a cliff i will fall to the bottom.

If you want to dismiss my claims on the spirit world by saying that in the absence of evidence other than my own senses I must be a) insane or b) a liar, then I have no further time for you. Each to their own.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Farside - regarding your last, I have already given examples of mediums with outstanding ability to pass on message from the spirit world. If you understand the mechanisms by which this occurs then congratulations, you have scientifically verified the existence of the spirit world. Can you share with me please?

Out of interest then, have you read the analysis recently done on some of Gordon's readings over at BadPsychics.com?

They show without doubt that he is doing cold reading in that instance and is anything but accurate.

So the question is if he has to resort to cold reading on that occasion, why isn't he falsifying all his other readings?

[Cuddles]

T the moment i am very interested in Ronald Pearson's work on sub-atomic particles & creation/annihilation.

Ronald Pearson has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. He is a retired engineer who only pretending to know about physics after he retired. Nothing he says has any validity whatsoever. If you want to learn about reality, I suggest you read real physics textbooks and things like Physics World. Listening to some quack with no knowledge in the relevant field will not help you lean anything except more lies.

[Tin Lizzie]

PS watch the tv channel ftn, particularly tuesday/wednesday's. Martin Fry. If you see the message 'i'm flying high', please tell me what is happening if that is not a spirit message.

[Julia]

I'd like to thank Tin Lizzie for filling the Psychic Sarah-shaped gap in our lives.

[Zaira]

Folks, is it possible to debate this without resorting to sarcasm - the lowest form of wit?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Yep, lets take things a bit slower first.

Tin Lizzie is saying on another thread that hot and cold reading are new terms to him/her.

At the moment this thread will just continue with everyone on different wavelengths. Let's at least try to see if we can get some of the skeptical side across.

We're not going to change anyone's beliefs overnight, but showing the evidence that is used for the skeptical standpoint will not be entirely futile.

[lara123]

prove it.prove you say!

tiresome and predictable


you are making claims as 'extraordinary'as mine by stating it does'nt exist.


come forward and prove it.

of course you cant,but instead of being in the middle and saying you dont know,because that is the truth,YOU DONT KNOW ,you state it as invalid.

your tiresome and predictable argument is always -YOU havent had the proof.you fail to see that many,many have,and scientists have.

your method of proof is not necessarily THE TRUTH.

I know the same is said about us so its time to get some good heads together then and a total understanding of the process ,you cant seem to fathom it out,and without this knowledge we're on a dead-end road,you come in on this subject without a willingness to be open but you claim this is not so because you want the proof to be your way.perhaps you'll never get your truth,even if a good reading comes along,you'll put it down to something else and dispute it,because you dont know how it works and seem to not care how it works and if you received accurate information would put it down to a lucky guess or the typical cold-reading thing.I doubt we could ever please you,could'nt see you changing over to gordons site,far too loving and caring,the little childish banters that goes on here about psychics/mediums along with the insults is playground stuff.

regard to donnygirl-her 12 yr old son claims to have 'seen' a little girl running about the house,many many children,a lot younger than that say the same.oh,poor little mites are liars too then?

go on,say the predictable thing about kids imaginations,we've heard it all before.yawn.

one more thing,i've never taken drugs,never had a bump to me head,and the 'dead' talk to me,they come find me,i didnt go looking for them.My mind energy is expansive that enables them to do this to me.

if you think this is insanity,thankyou,i'll stay here ,its a great place to be and when i pass over i'll greet you unkind sceptics,i'll bring the lovely gordon with me,oh,and dont worry about the transport,theres enough white vans to go round for you.

have a lovely day biting back,gotta go,thers a sceptic in my couldren.










-

[Zaira]

FarSide,

Sounds okay to me.

It’s the rough stuff I can’t stand.

Lets just allow everyone to have their say.

Then if we disagree - did I say IF we disagree? Silly me.

When we don’t agree with someone let us put our point across, with respect for each other as human beings, and stay on topic. :smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

I'd like to thank Tin Lizzie for filling the Psychic Sarah-shaped gap in our lives.

er...is that a compliment?? :-X

[brianp]

Based on the lack of evidence, you are clearly incapable of thinking for yourself.

On this forum we attack the message not the messenger. Those who can't tell the difference will very soon attract the attention of the mods.

[Tin Lizzie]

I'm not going to bother quoting you, but that gallant little exchange between yourself & bindeweede is a particular example of why you should listen to your own advice before giving it. Good day.

[Dr B]

Calm down everone. What is it that people want to debate here?

[brianp]

prove it.prove you say!
tiresome and predictable
you are making claims as 'extraordinary'as mine by stating it does'nt exist.
come forward and prove it.Predictable, of course it is. This is a skeptic forum where evidence is all.

We are not making any claims at all. We are NOT saying that the spirit world doesn't exist, we don't think it likely, in fact most of us are fairly sure it doesn't, but we would be willing to change our views completely just as soon as someone provides evidence of its existence.

But instead of evidence we get anecdotes, sorry, no good, because people lie and human senses are easily duped - we get party tricks, mostly cold-reading - we get retrofitting and so on. We never get real evidence because whenever genuine efforts are made to obtain it, the effort fails.

So please drop the pathetic efforts to shift the burden of proof - you are claiming that the spirit-world exists. I'm saying, wow, that's fantastic, but I'm not convinced, please show me some evidence.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

prove it.prove you say!

tiresome and predictable


you are making claims as 'extraordinary'as mine by stating it does'nt exist.


emm, thats not how things tend to work to be honest. There aren't many areas of society where you can get away with making extraordinary claims with no proof.

If I went to the bank and asked for a £10million mortgage, they might ask for proof of earnings

If I applied to be manager of Chelsea and claimed to be best football manager ever, they might ask for some proof of that.

If I claimed I had fairies living in my garden, I think people would be entitled to ask for proof.

Of course no one can disprove that I don't have fairies living in my garden.....but unless I can provide some sort of proof, why should anyone believe me?

Our society is based on making verifiable claims.

come forward and prove it.

of course you cant,but instead of being in the middle and saying you dont know,because that is the truth,YOU DONT KNOW ,you state it as invalid.

your tiresome and predictable argument is always -YOU havent had the proof.you fail to see that many,many have,and scientists have.

your method of proof is not necessarily THE TRUTH.


What is it then? Because science can explain your truth through rational and explainable method.

I know the same is said about us so its time to get some good heads together then and a total understanding of the process ,you cant seem to fathom it out,and without this knowledge we're on a dead-end road,you come in on this subject without a willingness to be open but you claim this is not so because you want the proof to be your way.


There isn't even a common acceptance within the believer world as to what the 'real' explanation for each supposed phenomena is. People seem free to derive their own interpretations of everything. How can you have a truth when no one can agree?


perhaps you'll never get your truth,even if a good reading comes along,you'll put it down to something else and dispute it,because you dont know how it works and seem to not care how it works and if you received accurate information would put it down to a lucky guess or the typical cold-reading thing.I doubt we could ever please you,could'nt see you changing over to gordons site,far too loving and caring,the little childish banters that goes on here about psychics/mediums along with the insults is playground stuff.


But we do know how readings are done. Posters on this board are able to take criticism and don't need to resort to ad-hominem attacks We frequently state that we are open to new evidence and willing to change our view.

I would love psychic ability to be real, and even more that there was an afterlife. It's not that I don't want those things to exist, it is just that there is no evidence that they do. That is your misunderstanding of the skeptic position.

regard to donnygirl-her 12 yr old son claims to have 'seen' a little girl running about the house,many many children,a lot younger than that say the same.oh,poor little mites are liars too then?

go on,say the predictable thing about kids imaginations,we've heard it all before.yawn.

No, I wouldn't insinuate they are liars, although technically some will be because as we know many children go through phases of attention seeking. I would refrain from calling a child a liar though because you are dealing with someone who is still developing as a person.

We need to understand what the children's experiences are and what the most likely explanation is. We know that children have imaginations and don't always tell the truth - it is a huge leap to imply that there is a paranormal explanation. You have to look at all the explanations, not just the paranormal one, and assess what is most likely.

Again, this is where you are not understanding the skeptic position. We don't have a closed-mind - we look at all the evidence. By immediately assuming there is a paranormal explanation, you are not evaluating all the options.

one more thing,i've never taken drugs,never had a bump to me head,and the 'dead' talk to me,they come find me,i didnt go looking for them.My mind energy is expansive that enables them to do this to me.

if you think this is insanity,thankyou,i'll stay here ,its a great place to be and when i pass over i'll greet you unkind sceptics,i'll bring the lovely gordon with me,oh,and dont worry about the transport,theres enough white vans to go round for you.

have a lovely day biting back,gotta go,thers a sceptic in my couldren.


Can you describe this mind energy?

If you genuinely hear voices, you may have some kind of mental illness. Note that I'm not saying you are insane - but mental illness is common and should not be stigmatised the way it used to. I'm not going to say anymore on that because it is not my place to do so.

Why are you accusing us of being unkind? I hope by now you are at least starting to understand the skeptic position.

[brianp]

I'm not going to bother quoting you, but that gallant little exchange between yourself & bindeweede is a particular example of why you should listen to your own advice before giving it. Good day.

You aren't quoting because you are misrepresenting what happened. At no point in the exchange between bindeweede and myself did we make any detrimental remarks about you. We challenged your assertion that "awareness" and "consciousness" were different and we challenged your misuse of the word "simile". All our comments were about your message, not about you. You, on the other hand, have attacked several forum members with comments like this one directed at me:

Based on the lack of evidence, you are clearly incapable of thinking for yourself.

Please stick to debate, not personal comments.

[donnygirl]

my son saw a little girl in our house .she said my name is lucy to him 5 years ago
we never told him we named our daughter lucy who died at 22 weeks in to pregnancy
he has never been to her grave i don't go that often as i know she isn't there
my son is a sensitive soul with no attention seeking bones in his body
i know my son and i know what he can do and lie is not one of them i know you didn't call him that but i was there when he told me he hadn't been to sleep or just woke up or was dozing it was in the afternoon and he was going upstairs to the bathroom
but thank you for commenting

[Tin Lizzie]

You have to look at all the explanations, not just the paranormal one, and assess what is most likely.

If you genuinely hear voices, you may have some kind of mental illness. Note that I'm not saying you are insane - but mental illness is common and should not be stigmatised the way it used to. I'm not going to say anymore on that because it is not my place to do so.



Accepting which is 'the most likely' is hard to do without being subjective, and still leaves no 'concrete proof' either way.

I have heard voices only on several occasions. The striking thing is that they came prior to -not after- some quite drastic incidents.
I know others who have heard voices to, for example my dear dad, who, whilst speeding down the motorway suddenly heard, clear as crystal, his long-departed mum telling him to slow down. She was a tad too late though - my dad was pulled over and 'punished accordingly':smiley: moments later.

I am not having a personal go here, but to instantly jump to the conclusion of mental illness is to rule out wihtou consideration the influence of the spirit world. Just because many mental patients do hear voices, doesn't mean that hearing voices makes us 'mental'.

[Tin Lizzie]

brian p, i am referring to the exchange not concerning myself - i responded to that one in another message and acknowledge my incorrect use of terminology. I am referring to the exchange where you mocked physcics.
When I say 'incapable of thinking for yourself' I am referring to the scientific belief that we are controlled by the EC activity within us, not the other way round. So, that was a scientific statement and not a personal slant. Peace.

[vbloke]

Well on that first point, the fact that these experiments are no longer conducted owes much to the revulsion of the religiously-orientated society at the time, as well as the fact that a deliberate smear campaign was orchestrated against Hooke (after he had died of course).But science is a self policing entity - if his experiments were valid, they would have been replicated. Perhaps not at the time, but certainly later on.

Gordon Smith and others are only human, and of course TV shows are edited otherwise we would spend hours waiting for messages to materialise. He for one has actually taken part in scientific studies. Please provide evidence of this (and please don't mention Gary Schwartz as your evidence, any credibility he had has long since gone).

Where interests collide there will always be moments of heated debate, so i am glad to engage in fair discussion. I am unaware of the meaning of hot and cold reading & would be grateful if anyone could provide linkies. T the moment i am very interested in Ronald Pearson's work on sub-atomic particles & creation/annihilation.I believe others have provided these. As for Ronald Pearson, I'd suggest that you go and read books by people who know what they're talking about, not crackpots.

No, it's not the end of the story.

Life came along well before science (i am a science teacher btw, just so you don't take me for some kind of hippy) and it will carry on regardless of scientific progress.It will indeed, but it is only through science that we are uncovering the vast accomplishments of what life is capable of. how much of our present day knowledge of life, the universe and everything has come from the spirit world?

You are right, there is no need for scientific evidence of the spirit world, many of us know it is there without needing science. Just as I do not need science to tell me that if I jump off a cliff i will fall to the bottom.There is if you claim it exists. You make a claim, you must be prepared to back it up.

If you want to dismiss my claims on the spirit world by saying that in the absence of evidence other than my own senses I must be a) insane or b) a liar, then I have no further time for you. Each to their own.No, I can dismiss them on the grounds you have provided no evidence for examination. Until then, you can say what you like, it won't change the fact that there is zero evidence for life after death or a spirit world.

prove it.prove you say!

tiresome and predictableYet we keep asking because you make claims without proof.

you are making claims as 'extraordinary'as mine by stating it does'nt exist.

come forward and prove it.NO. We take the default position of science - if you claim something exists, place your evidence in front of me so I can check it. I do not claim it doesn't exist - I am waiting for you to prove it does.

of course you cant,but instead of being in the middle and saying you dont know,because that is the truth,YOU DONT KNOW ,you state it as invalid.See above. The greatest phrase in science is "I don't know" - it is that that drives us to make discoveries. I don't know if there is a spirit world or not, the evidence thus far has been unable to show that there is one. I am still waiting for definitive proof.

your tiresome and predictable argument is always -YOU havent had the proof.you fail to see that many,many have,and scientists have.Then where is it? Surely something as Earth-shattering as proof of life after death would be being studied by every science laboratory on Earth.

your method of proof is not necessarily THE TRUTH.No, but it is one step on the path to truth.

I know the same is said about us so its time to get some good heads together then and a total understanding of the process ,you cant seem to fathom it out,and without this knowledge we're on a dead-end road,you come in on this subject without a willingness to be open but you claim this is not so because you want the proof to be your way.perhaps you'll never get your truth,even if a good reading comes along,you'll put it down to something else and dispute it,because you dont know how it works and seem to not care how it works and if you received accurate information would put it down to a lucky guess or the typical cold-reading thing.I doubt we could ever please you,could'nt see you changing over to gordons site,far too loving and caring,the little childish banters that goes on here about psychics/mediums along with the insults is playground stuff.It is very easy to test an ability - it's just that when we do, the ability mysteriously vanishes. If you want to be taken seriously, then put together a series of proofs, couple it with irrefutable evidence and be prepared to have it peer reviewed, along with tests of your exponents and then we'll talk.

Accepting which is 'the most likely' is hard to do without being subjective, and still leaves no 'concrete proof' either way.The default position is to disbelieve until sufficient evidence shows that to be wrong. It is up to the claimant to prove their case, not vice versa.

I have heard voices only on several occasions. The striking thing is that they came prior to -not after- some quite drastic incidents.
I know others who have heard voices to, for example my dear dad, who, whilst speeding down the motorway suddenly heard, clear as crystal, his long-departed mum telling him to slow down. She was a tad too late though - my dad was pulled over and 'punished accordingly':smiley: moments later. As we have said before, personal anecdotes, however compelling to you, are worthless as research tools.

I am not having a personal go here, but to instantly jump to the conclusion of mental illness is to rule out wihtou consideration the influence of the spirit world. Just because many mental patients do hear voices, doesn't mean that hearing voices makes us 'mental'.I'm not entirely sure that was what was being implied. It is possible to have a mental illness without being "mental". Depression is a mental illness, don't forget. Some people my just have more vivid imaginations than others and are incapable of discerning reality from fantasy in certain circumstances. That's not to say it happen all the time, or that person is incapable of functioning rationally the rest of the time, it just means that they are more prone to think that "voices" are coming from an external source, rather than from within your own mind.

[Melanie]

From Gordon Smith's website -

http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/about2.html#scientific

Gordon has worked with Professor Archie Roy, Emeritus Professor of Astronomy at Glasgow University and Tricia Robertson of the Scottish Society for Psychical Research.


There's an extra link there too, to the SSPR site featuring a description of some of the work that's been done with Gordon and the mediumship phenomena in general. Full papers are with the London-based SPR.

Prof Roy and Tricia are extremely intelligent and very nice people - Dr B can tell you more about their methodology and it's validity.

Calling Dr B!

[Dr B]

I'm sensing a great disturbance in the force.......:ponder:

[Tin Lizzie]

The only evidence i have over Gordon Smith (I don't vouch for that other guy) is from his book 'the unbelievable truth' - don't have it on me now, but he gives the place, date, time and names of scientists present.

I have a couple of friends who have taken part in scientific experiments on telepathy, the results did nothing short of 'prove', even by rigorous scientific demands, that telepathic communication exists. before you ask, i will try to find links, however one of these studies was carried out in 2005/2006 by the ministry of defence & i'm not sure how classified it is.....watch this space.

As for Ronald Pearson...if he, as a former lecturer on thermal physics and superconductors, is what you call a raving loony, then you're shooting yourself in the foot a bit.

[Dr B]

As for Ronald Pearson...if he, as a former lecturer on thermal physics and superconductors, is what you call a raving loony, then you're shooting yourself in the foot a bit.

Actually Cuddles is quite right. I can tell you, as a neuroscientist, that Pearson's ideas are nonsense and can be legitimately ignored.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

The only evidence i have over Gordon Smith (I don't vouch for that other guy) is from his book 'the unbelievable truth' - don't have it on me now, but he gives the place, date, time and names of scientists present.

I have a couple of friends who have taken part in scientific experiments on telepathy, the results did nothing short of 'prove', even by rigorous scientific demands, that telepathic communication exists. before you ask, i will try to find links, however one of these studies was carried out in 2005/2006 by the ministry of defence & i'm not sure how classified it is.....watch this space.

As for Ronald Pearson...if he, as a former lecturer on thermal physics and superconductors, is what you call a raving loony, then you're shooting yourself in the foot a bit.

You can download reports from 2001/2 under freedom of information act from here:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/DisclosureLog/SearchDisclosureLog/RemoteViewing.htm

This was news earlier this year:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6388575.stm

Of course, the fact that the study was done at all has been seized upon in various places that there must be something to it, despite the conclusion.

I can't comment on anything that took place in 2005/6.

[Tin Lizzie]

You can download reports from 2001/2 under freedom of information act from here:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/DisclosureLog/SearchDisclosureLog/RemoteViewing.htm

This was news earlier this year:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6388575.stm

Of course, the fact that the study was done at all has been seized upon in various places that there must be something to it, despite the conclusion.

I can't comment on anything that took place in 2005/6.

thanks for that farside, but it's not the study i had in mind. Some of that makes me laugh - the first 10 pages or so are almost completely censored or 'intentionally left blank' - i know they have to do that but still, i found it quite funny. That whole remote viewing thing is different - hardly my forte i'm afraid so i'd rather not comment.

The study i am referring to involved soldiers returning from front-line service in Afghanistan. I was told about it by a friend who served there, although he didn't say whether he took part himself. It's pointless for me to repeat what he said without backing it up with the actual findings, but I was told that the tests involved subjects being placed in a room, with a one-way mirror along one wall. apparently the soldiers showed a very strong ability to tell when somebody was on the other side of the mirror and when somebody wasn't. A civilian control group demonstrated little or no ability to do this. I'm not saying just yet that this confirms anything - i will do my best to get hold of information

[lara123]

this all started because farside called me a liar.

Then you say you are not dismissing our claims but if we are making those claims to prove it.

are you seriously saying your farside did no wrong?


make your minds up! this would have been so much better for us all if farside woud of approached as a decent human being.i have nothing against sceptics and i find it sad it has come to this.

but name-calling is simply wrong,theres a way to discuss things and disagree but this is getting nasty.


I would like to come in as new again on this matter and will explain how its works for me if anyones interested,so long as its respectful and decent and i too and interested in what you have to say at times but it seems you have the barriers up ..I dont have to try and prove it to you personally and if because of that you wish not to interact then goodbye from me.

but i will not tolerate insults anymore,yet still you deny you're firing away.And where are the moderators regarding farside and the name-calling-oh,he did it on gordons site so thats ok then.

manners maketh the man.communication is over with farside.

i wish you all well regardless of this disagreement,and to the person who spoke of the loss of his wife and baby,i am sorry for your loss,from one human being to another full stop.

It all could of,and should of been better than this and i too , got riled and a bit naughty >:D only trying to defend myself guys.This could of been GREAT ,a place to visit where the likes of you and me can discuss,obvious it would cause friction at times,many times,but still could of been done.Farside was way out..and wrong..he did not attack the message,he attacked me.gee!! if any of us had come cover and done it..come on ...not as a sceptic ...as a human being,,cant you see ??????

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

this all started because farside called me a liar.

Then you say you are not dismissing our claims but if we are making those claims to prove it.

are you seriously saying your farside did no wrong?


make your minds up! this would have been so much better for us all if farside woud of approached as a decent human being.i have nothing against sceptics and i find it sad it has come to this.

but name-calling is simply wrong,theres a way to discuss things and disagree but this is getting nasty.


I would like to come in as new again on this matter and will explain how its works for me if anyones interested,so long as its respectful and decent and i too and interested in what you have to say at times but it seems you have the barriers up ..I dont have to try and prove it to you personally and if because of that you wish not to interact then goodbye from me.

but i will not tolerate insults anymore,yet still you deny you're firing away.And where are the moderators regarding farside and the name-calling-oh,he did it on gordons site so thats ok then.

manners maketh the man.communication is over with farside.

i wish you all well regardless of this disagreement,and to the person who spoke of the loss of his wife and baby,i am sorry for your loss,from one human being to another full stop.

It all could of,and should of been better than this and i too , got riled and a bit naughty <IMG class=inlineimg title="<IMG class=inlineimg title="<IMG class=inlineimg title="<IMG class=inlineimg title=">:D" alt="" src="http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/smilies/evil.gif" border=0 smilieid="22">" alt="" src="http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/smilies/evil.gif" border=0 smilieid="22">" alt="" src="http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/smilies/evil.gif" border=0 smilieid="22">" alt="" src="http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/smilies/evil.gif" border=0 smilieid="22"> only trying to defend myself guys.This could of been GREAT ,a place to visit where the likes of you and me can discuss,obvious it would cause friction at times,many times,but still could of been done.Farside was way out..and wrong..he did not attack the message,he attacked me.gee!! if any of us had come cover and done it..come on ...not as a sceptic ...as a human being,,cant you see ??????

I've responded to two of your posts with detailed comments, which you haven't responded to yet - so you don't need to refer to me in the third person.

There are some points in those responses you could answer for us.

If you are maintaining that you are able to pass messages on from miscarried embryos, then of course, we are all interested in how you can back up that claim. If you can't then I would be entitled to feel angy that you are still making those claims. With this particular claim I originally took the pragmatic skeptic approach that it must be false and also that it is distasteful, however I am willing to retreat from that standpoint to give you a chance to explain further.

[bindeweede]

I'm not going to bother quoting you, but that gallant little exchange between yourself & bindeweede is a particular example of why you should listen to your own advice before giving it. Good day.

I'd still be very happy if you could explain for me the difference between "consciousness" and "awareness".

Oh, and for someone who believes in psychics and mediums to say this.....
I am unaware of the meaning of hot and cold reading & would be grateful if anyone could provide linkies.

.....astounds me to say the least.

[John Jackson]

Hi all, and welcome to UKS. O0

I'm rather busy at the moment so just a fleeting visit.

This caught my eye however:

I would like to come in as new again on this matter and will explain how its works for me if anyones interested

I think that would be an excellent idea.

Forget whether the afterlife is real or not (we can examine that separately) and give us an insight into what all this means to you.

I think there's two aspects to most beliefs and claims: validity (is it true or false?) and utility (do people benefit from it?)

I think it would be really helpful to see this from a utility point of view. What does this mean to people, what benefits do they get from it, is it a personal benefit or is there a social aspect to it too?

I'd really like to see the meaning this (or these types) of belief has for people.

May be a good idea to start a new thread on it so it doesn't get mixed up in here.

John

[lara123]

Thankyou john.

alrighty farside here goes..i have already said this before..i did not mean to say 'literally' the messages come through from a 5 wk embryo,but later on in life,but the misscarriage had occurred at 5 wks.i apologise i should of stated clearer but on our forum we understand such things,and i did write it on ours not yours,

john is correct we should start this on a different thread,i will be happy to explain what i mean by 'later on in life'and any other questions.mind energy and energy particularly interest me as i can see it and feel it well,many things we can discuss.

Im not here to try and convince you of anything but i hope to swap our beliefs in a sane matter.

lets forget about being 'right'

lets explore-i like to explore too,let us say what we think,what we believe,i do believe in frauds i've already said that,i do not know everything on this matter,on the grand scale of things i know little.but i know how it works for me,how my senses work differently to what they used to and so forth..i had no particular interest in this myself 8 yrs ago,i did not give a reading for 5 yrs,i got to know how it works for me as best as i could.sharing this may do nothing for you,and thats ok,but we need to keep this healthy,we will disagree we know that,but im able and willing to hear what you and others have to say,lets be more careful HOW we say somethings,we can still get our views across the same.

All i ask from you is when you disagree with me[and others like me]not to personally insult and i give you my word now i will not do so too.I am going to simply walk away from you if occurs again.
And if that is the case,you are doing an injustice to us all alike,im a likable person you know ..im much more than a psychic/medium,its only one part of me,a part that is willing to come forward with my respect for all of you and offer an insight,maybe you will,maybe you wont hear anything new ,but still could be worthwhile and even enjoyable if we try and interesting to others,believers and sceptics alike.we dont have to be at verbal war.

so my dear farside,whatever you decide,i wish you peace and love.
all is forgiven on my part from now on.thankyou.

[Tin Lizzie]

I'd still be very happy if you could explain for me the difference between "consciousness" and "awareness".

Oh, and for someone who believes in psychics and mediums to say this.....
I am unaware of the meaning of hot and cold reading & would be grateful if anyone could provide linkies.

.....astounds me to say the least.

oh yeah...

right, consciousness and awareness. well i'm not going by the dictionary, so you might want to stop reading here.

i refer to consciuosness as you sceptics would understand it: consciousness in this physical body, in the sense that we are 'awake'.

i refer to 'awareness' in the sense that although we are no longer 'conscious' (in the aforementioned sense) we are still aware of certain sensations i.e. light, colour, other presences, noises, and possibly some environment around us.

if i have merely confused you, i am sure i real psychich/medium may be able to better define things. otherwise i suggest you refer to a dictionary.

As for the terms 'hot and cold reading' - if you search through the psychic community i doubt you will find these terms. the only thing astounding here is that you don't seem to have looked at their work and their terminology. And what would you say if you were to take a private reading and be given a message 'from the grave'? surely taking a reading yourself may be the best way to confirm whatever you believe about the other side?

[lara123]

please stop picking on tin lizzy!so derogatory! come on!!!!

[John Jackson]

please stop picking on tin lizzy!so derogatory! come on!!!!

Where?

False claims of bullying are abusive Ad Hominem attacks and are just as nasty as, and in fact no different to, the real thing.

If you're going to start playing that card then we'll never get anywhere. :-\

[bindeweede]

oh yeah...

right, consciousness and awareness. well i'm not going by the dictionary, so you might want to stop reading here.

i refer to consciuosness as you sceptics would understand it: consciousness in this physical body, in the sense that we are 'awake'.

i refer to 'awareness' in the sense that although we are no longer 'conscious' (in the aforementioned sense) we are still aware of certain sensations i.e. light, colour, other presences, noises, and possibly some environment around us.

if i have merely confused you, i am sure i real psychich/medium may be able to better define things. otherwise i suggest you refer to a dictionary.

As for the terms 'hot and cold reading' - if you search through the psychic community i doubt you will find these terms. the only thing astounding here is that you don't seem to have looked at their work and their terminology. And what would you say if you were to take a private reading and be given a message 'from the grave'? surely taking a reading yourself may be the best way to confirm whatever you believe about the other side?

i refer to consciuosness as you sceptics would understand it:
consciousness in this physical body, in the sense that we are 'awake'.

So, am I right in thinking that the word "consciousness" would mean something different to non-sceptics? Well my standard English dictionary has this...

"the waking state of the mind; the knowledge which the mind has of anything that is actually being experienced; awareness; thought.

Perhaps a "Psychics" dictionary would explain differently.

[Tin Lizzie]

well yes because consciousness is not a state of mind or awareness, it is the driving force behind life.

[Tin Lizzie]

Actually Cuddles is quite right. I can tell you, as a neuroscientist, that Pearson's ideas are nonsense and can be legitimately ignored.

'prove it' *yawn* :smiley:

[bindeweede]

well yes because consciousness is not a state of mind or awareness, it is the driving force behind life.

I must contact the editors of Chambers dictionary with that insight.

[Tin Lizzie]

I must contact the editors of Chambers dictionary with that insight.

;D sure, for whatever good it may do you

[John Jackson]

Somnambulism (sleep walking) is an example of how it's possible to be conscious without being aware. ???

It is possible to interact with the environment, some people even drive cars, whilst sleep walking so the person must be conscious; however, they are not aware of their actions.

Conscious and awareness are similar and related but not necessarily the same thing.

[Tin Lizzie]

Somnambulism (sleep walking) is an example of how it's possible to be conscious without being aware. ???

It is possible to interact with the environment, some people even drive cars, whilst sleep walking so the person must be conscious; however, they are not aware of their actions.

Conscious and awareness are similar and related but not necessarily the same thing.

i am humbled. back to school for me...

[brianp]

brian p, i am referring to the exchange not concerning myself - i responded to that one in another message and acknowledge my incorrect use of terminology. I am referring to the exchange where you mocked physcics.

I can't remember anyone mocking physics - I'm quite fond of the subject and I would certainly take exception if anyone did so.;)

Nor did we mock any forum member, psychic or otherwise, any specific psychic or even psychics in general. What we did was to satirise one of the tricks employed by some fraudulent psychics - that of feeding knowledge obtained by non-psychic means into what purports to be a psychic reading. That is about as far from an ad hominem attack as it's possible to get.

When I say 'incapable of thinking for yourself' I am referring to the scientific belief that we are controlled by the EC activity within us, not the other way round. So, that was a scientific statement and not a personal slant. Peace.

I'm far from convinced that your words:

Based on the lack of evidence, you are clearly incapable of thinking for yourself.

can be so interpreted, but I'm happy to forget it.

[brianp]

Somnambulism (sleep walking) is an example of how it's possible to be conscious without being aware. ???

It is possible to interact with the environment, some people even drive cars, whilst sleep walking so the person must be conscious; however, they are not aware of their actions.

Conscious and awareness are similar and related but not necessarily the same thing.

I don't think I would call the state of mind of a sleep-walker (or sleep driver) as "conscious". Clearly parts of the brain are processing information from the senses and issuing instructions to the muscles to enable the walking or driving to be performed, but the bits of the brain providing consciousness are switched off - or are maybe on standby.

.

[Tin Lizzie]

i see your point

crikey, if only wars could be resolved so easily!

[Tin Lizzie]

I don't think I would call the state of mind of a sleep-walker (or sleep driver) as "conscious". Clearly parts of the brain are processing information from the senses and issuing instructions to the muscles to enable the walking or driving to be performed, but the bits of the brain providing consciousness are switched off - or are maybe on standby.

.

begs the question...how is it that sleep-walkers can perform co-ordinated movements and actions....hmm this is interesting, i wonder if there are any hypnotherapists who may be able to help explain this?

[Zaira]

Your thoughts on a guy who did this, and drove to his mother in laws house and killed his wife’s family claiming he wasn’t aware of any of it.

Trying to find the story. It’s quite old but this jogged my memory. Anyone remember it?


Just found this...


http://sleepdisorders.about.com/od/sleepwalkingandtalkin1/a/moremurder.htm


http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Somnambulism+murder&meta=

[Tin Lizzie]

that's worrying! :-X

on a lighter note...

one night i woke up suddenly, standing outside my flat in nothing but my boxer shorts!!!! straight away i thought 's**t i've been sleepwalking'. it was 3am & luckily my flatmate was in. he nearly died laughing, funnily enough :-[

i assure you, this was far from a regular occurence!

[Zaira]

My sister used to do it. Walk around carrying her dolly. Freaked me out many times. ;)

[Tin Lizzie]

8)

twilight zone....

^-^

[Zaira]

Not really. I’ve experienced twilighter moments than that. ;)

[lara123]

hello all,i dont mind being teased about psychic stuff,it can be quite amusing and very witty.and i like a good laugh.;D

if i have mistaken humour for attack i apologise and i acknowledge there was misinterpretation between farside and myself so here i am to see what i can learn from you.

I understand hot and cold reading techniques and do not dispute some psychics use them,you understand why i say some,yes?

do you believe theres another explanation to a method what i can do or you believe it is not possible at all or are we heading to i would need to see that myself.-and im not critizing-im particularly interested if you think theres something else going on.

i can give a reading on a name only,or a nickname,not see the person,never met the person.we are coming back to i think- what information actually i give,vagueness and bound to get something right etc yes?so the quality is then to be examined of course,but what actually is good enough quality for you guys,because nearly all of us dont get the info.in the language we speak here,we get pictures and are interpreting energy and each reading can be different and sometimes difficult and with mediumship,the messages can seem trivial to others,so i do understand where you come from somewhat.But in mediumship i are only relaying what we 'hear',uncle tommy or so-so often just wants to say hello and a few other things,detailed or sometimes not,so here lies one problem yes.

what detail would you[im asking any sceptic on here] be satisfied with or at least make you sway a little more to thinking hey,just maybe something is really going on here.

Thankyou very much.

[Cuddles]

'prove it' *yawn* :smiley:

It is up to Pearson to prove his ideas. However, as I have pointed out, his views on physics and afterlives and whatever have absolutely nothing to do with his qualifications, which are in materials science and engineering. It is painfully obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of physics that his nonsense has absolutely no basis in reality. I was going to go through one of his articles and point out the errors, but there really is no point. He doesn't get a single thing even close to being right. He has absolutely no clue what quantum physics is and everything he says is based either on ignorance or wilful misinterpretation to try to further his own beliefs.

[Zaira]

lara123,

Welcome back. I just wanted to say that I used to do what you did. I had little trust and I thought even people who were trying to help me were attacking me. Then I learned to trust and with that came the hunger for knowledge. If you want to stick around I can promise you it will be worth your while - even if it simply enhances your own beliefs. We can learn so much when we are willing to listen to the other guy. That doesn't mean we have to take on board all