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.

[Admin]

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!!!!

[Admin]

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

[Admin]

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 that they are saying.

No offence intended. Welcome! :smiley:

[Bat E Bird]

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.

Hi lara123

I don't post here much but I like to read what's going on. I joined this forum because I want to believe that there are some genuine psychics out there but I need proof.

I hope I've understood you correctly in that you can do a reading for someone from just their name. If that's the case, I would love to do a reading for me.

I then had an idea. If someone on here could create a list of questions, we could both answer them and see how accurate your reading is.

I know it isn't a scientifically controlled experiment but I would be genuinely interested in seeing the results.

We obviously don't know each other and we could send the answers to someone neutral by pm or something.

What do you think? Would you be interested?

Thanks
:smiley:

[bindeweede]

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'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

Some well-considered stuff here.....

http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=393
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/

....relating to paranormal and quantum physics.

[bindeweede]

From a post at "The Psychic Barber" regarding this forum.

LB always gotta be first eh! (wheres the end of the que hehe http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif )
I`ve just had a quick look at the above topic.
Gosh there are some sad people in this world who just ("DONT GET IT")
The best reaction I can muster about the whole site is:-
http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif side splittingly so!! rolled around the floor in fact!
About that twat randi, that very "RICH" twat randi!!!!!!!. gives me the creeps and I dont scare easily!!. he talks such a load of piffle! Boy is he gonna have a http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif face when he gets there, just hope he learns his lesson and doesnt come back haha!
Do they know about the scientific side of things? many mediums have been tested and they have been found to be frighteningly acurate.
The site has a complete and utter non understanding of us, and quite frankly they can put their heads where the sun dont shine! http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif
Not often I get the urge to spit a few feathers, but hey I`m only human!!!
Unlike them!.
Knew I said I wouldnt coment but, the opportunity was toooooo good to miss! after all its a girls perogative to change their mind!
Rainbows, I send you a HUGE hug and lots of love http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif
With much Love,Light and Laughter to all, some need it more than others!
Cas x
oooooooooooooooh you know what, I feel better now! http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif lets sit back and see what transpires

Impressive.

More..

blimey oh riley cas,nearly fell of me chair with you http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif.good point about james randi making his money,....yes,this had the most views so quickly.

my only concern is the negativity it brings to us to fight our case,which we know we dont have a fighting chance anyhow with some people.

anyway..change of subject..

what do you call the man who knows it all?

...um..umm...hang on..just tuning in....begins with a fr..no..a ffff.yes a f..yes definately a f,come on spirrits,speak up! oh damn.only getting the f,....f.. f...f...f....f....f....f....f.....f....f....f....f ......f.....f.....f....f....f....f.....f.....f
oh,getting 2 words now,a double f

f... and a f....,COME ON ,SPEAK AH TO ME

F AND A F,,OOH ITS COMING TO ME
ooh ooh oooh ,sounds like ..

fick ferside

http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

there............. CLOSURE

[Admin]

That's a typical attitude from believers.

It's embarrassing really.

If they think that's the way to put forward their case then let them get on with it.

It makes a bit of a mockery of those who try to play the 'nasty skeptic' card though, doesn't it? ;)

[bindeweede]

That's a typical attitude from believers.

It's embarrassing really.

If they think that's the way to put forward their case then let them get on with it.

It makes a bit of a mockery of those who try to play the 'nasty skeptic' card though, doesn't it? ;)

I doubt very much if anyone here would have posted stuff like that over there. Farside's posts, those I have read, are polite and reasoned. He was simply appalled at the idea of so-called communication with an embryo.

[meercat]

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,

Martin Fry? Did he really have time to speak to the dead whilst fronting the 80's pop group ABC? I always knew there was something mystical about that fringe of his.......

[Tin Lizzie]

I doubt very much if anyone here would have posted stuff like that over there.

er.......

[bindeweede]

er.......
Yes. You are right. That did not come out the way I meant it to. But I am not aware of anyone here (could be wrong of course) making comments here about that site, like some of the above.

[Tin Lizzie]

it's a shame that these things happen. as melanie has shown, and as you can read in his books, Gordon Smith for one has co-operated with eminent scientists and has actually used science in some of his investigations, namely a poltergeist case which he attributed to telekinetic disturbance rather than...er, some woo terminology.

[brianp]

it's a shame that these things happen. as melanie has shown, and as you can read in his books, Gordon Smith for one has co-operated with eminent scientists and has actually used science in some of his investigations, namely a poltergeist case which he attributed to telekinetic disturbance rather than...er, some woo terminology.

"Telekinetic disturbance" is woo terminolgy. Coining impressive-sounding but meaningless jargon does not constitute "using science".

[Tin Lizzie]

"Telekinetic disturbance" is woo terminolgy. Coining impressive-sounding but meaningless jargon does not constitute "using science".

???well i think it is very much a scientific term, effectively being a combination of telepathy and kinetic energy. if not then could you please provide links to scientific explanations of poltergeists?

[brianp]

???well i think it is very much a scientific term, effectively being a combination of telepathy and kinetic energy. if not then could you please provide links to scientific explanations of poltergeists?

Surely "telekinetic" is a combination of "tele" (at a distance) and "kinetic" (of, relating to, or produced by motion) - ie producing motion at a distance (by mind power). Telekinetic phenomena have never been shown to exist so a "telekinetic disturbance" cannot even be defined. It's meaningless.

I believe that polotergeist phenonmena usually occur in the presence of children - so my working hypothesis would be that they are produced by children by perfectly normal means. An alternative hypothesis would be that they were produced, imagined or invented by the person reporting the phenomenon.

[Tin Lizzie]

Surely "telekinetic" is a combination of "tele" (at a distance) and "kinetic" (of, relating to, or produced by motion) - ie producing motion at a distance (by mind power). Telekinetic phenomena have never been shown to exist so a "telekinetic disturbance" cannot even be defined. It's meaningless.

I believe that polotergeist phenonmena usually occur in the presence of children - so my working hypothesis would be that they are produced by children by perfectly normal means. An alternative hypothesis would be that they were produced, imagined or invented by the person reporting the phenomenon.

as i am not a paricularly studied expert on this matter i am not going to rule anything out. i do suggest though that you read the relevant section in Gordon's book, where the victims concerned are adults as well as teenagers and where levitations, moving objects etc. were witnessed by outside investigators.

until you can dismiss this with scientific evidence, what you have said is meaningless.

[Cuddles]

until you can dismiss this with scientific evidence, what you have said is meaningless.

No, until you can prove it with scientific evidence, what you have said is meaningless.

[Admin]

as i am not a paricularly studied expert on this matter i am not going to rule anything out. i do suggest though that you read the relevant section in Gordon's book, where the victims concerned are adults as well as teenagers and where levitations, moving objects etc. were witnessed by outside investigators.

Gordon Smith is a self-proclaimed psychic who's known to use Cold Reading (!)

Do you seriously expect skeptics to take what's written in his book as a serious, trustworthy source of information?

You say you're a science teacher so I presume you have a degree in one of the sciences. Surely you have some idea of the need for evidence?

Honestly, you seem incredibly naive to me.


until you can dismiss this with scientific evidence, what you have said is meaningless.

No. What you need to do is provide evidence that what's written in Gordon's book is actually true before anyone needs to examine it.

It will probably not fit with your world view but it might just be a little smarter of you to view Gordon's book as a work of fiction. ;)

[vbloke]

as i am not a paricularly studied expert on this matter i am not going to rule anything out. i do suggest though that you read the relevant section in Gordon's book, where the victims concerned are adults as well as teenagers and where levitations, moving objects etc. were witnessed by outside investigators.

until you can dismiss this with scientific evidence, what you have said is meaningless.During Richard Wiseman's latest talk, he discussed poltergeist hauntings.

One of the things that appear to happen is that it sometimes is not just one person faking the phenomena - it can be several people, all faking one small aspect of the haunting to make it more "amazing". Oddly, each of these people, as they're not faking all of it, believe that the stuff they don't fake is genuine, making the whole situation very complex, but still ultimately fraudulent.

[Tin Lizzie]

During Richard Wiseman's latest talk, he discussed poltergeist hauntings.

One of the things that appear to happen is that it sometimes is not just one person faking the phenomena - it can be several people, all faking one small aspect of the haunting to make it more "amazing". Oddly, each of these people, as they're not faking all of it, believe that the stuff they don't fake is genuine, making the whole situation very complex, but still ultimately fraudulent.

:ponder:

again though the keyword here is 'sometimes'. i mean there are charlatans and fakes in all walks of life. i can't believe that each and every single case is due to fakery.

[Tin Lizzie]

Honestly, you seem incredibly naive to me.



No. What you need to do is provide evidence that what's written in Gordon's book is actually true before anyone needs to examine it.

It will probably not fit with your world view but it might just be a little smarter of you to view Gordon's book as a work of fiction. ;)

Naive? no. i have never before looked into the spirit world from a scientific angle.

regarding all that evidence stuff, well yes i do have a degree in science and yes i am aware of the need for evidence. sadly of course anecdotes practically = lies or false memories, so i need to revise my understanding.

if you provide proof the GS' book is a work of fiction and that each and every of the anecdotes in it are false, i assure you i will accept it as fiction.

looks like it will come down to 'belief' in the meantime.

[lara123]

To big e bird,thankyou for writing.firstly how you present what we should do,with the questions,is not the way i work.

being a medium,i only get the infomation then deliver it,this information coming several ways and not in the language we know.i only know how to listen to spirit,not conduct a 2 way conversation.

The sitter then knows if the information is true or not[or still unsure]! and i understand you would like proof.but we come to the most difficult bit here,what is proof regarding this,what is enough for one isnt enough for another.I want people to have an understanding of the process that i read for,tell them how i get the info etc.you will find this info about me on gordons site under,mediumship,how it works for me.i do not feel i have to or should prove anything to anyone but will try and help those in need.full stop,if they dont like my reading,believe it etc - ,-they wont come back.

despite the recent commotion going on here,i.ve never really had a chance to put across some my views.It is fine,ok,no problem to me to be sceptical ,we should not believe a psychic just because one claims to be so and it is wise to look properly at the reading given .nit-pick it,look at everything said.

so ,you see im with the sceptics somewhat,i just dont like the way they put some things and i do believe they are missing some vital points,in how working in energy really works,but it must be difficult to understand when one doesnt do it.

I have no control on what a spirit wants to say,some readings are more detailed than others-read my post on gordons site and come back to me and we'll take it from there.

[brianp]

until you can dismiss this with scientific evidence, what you have said is meaningless.

That's silly. You're the one asserting that poltergeist phenomena are real and the onus of proof is always on the side of the positive assertion.

[lara123]

To big e bird,thankyou for writing.firstly how you present what we should do,with the questions,is not the way i work.

being a medium,i only get the infomation then deliver it,this information coming several ways and not in the language we know.i only know how to listen to spirit,not conduct a 2 way conversation.

The sitter then knows if the information is true or not[or still unsure]! and i understand you would like proof.but we come to the most difficult bit here,what is proof regarding this,what is enough for one isnt enough for another.I want people to have an understanding of the process that i read for,tell them how i get the info etc.you will find this info about me on gordons site under,mediumship,how it works for me.i do not feel i have to or should prove anything to anyone but will try and help those in need.full stop,if they dont like my reading,believe it etc - ,-they wont come back.

despite the recent commotion going on here,i.ve never really had a chance to put across some my views.It is fine,ok,no problem to me to be sceptical ,we should not believe a psychic just because one claims to be so and it is wise to look properly at the reading given .nit-pick it,look at everything said.

so ,you see im with the sceptics somewhat,i just dont like the way they put some things and i do believe they are missing some vital points,in how working in energy really works,but it must be difficult to understand when one doesnt do it.

I have no control on what a spirit wants to say,some readings are more detailed than others-read my post on gordons site and come back to me and we'll take it from there.

[bindeweede]

lara123

You said...
so ,you see im with the sceptics somewhat,i just dont like the way they put some things and i do believe they are missing some vital points,in how working in energy really works,but it must be difficult to understand when one doesnt do it.

Can you tell me please what sort of energy you work in? Is it "psychic energy" or "spirit energy", or some other sort. Are they the same or different?

Has this energy ever been identified? Can it be measured? How do you know it is really there?

There are scientific devices to measure all kinds of energy, but as far as I know (could be wrong of course), no device has been invented to measure psychic/spirit energy.

Just seeking clarification.

[vbloke]

To big e bird,thankyou for writing.firstly how you present what we should do,with the questions,is not the way i work.

being a medium,i only get the infomation then deliver it,this information coming several ways and not in the language we know.i only know how to listen to spirit,not conduct a 2 way conversation.Yet, surely when you do a reading, you must be able to select which spirit you want to talk to, otherwise, you'd end up talking to the wrong person's deceased relatives, or have I got that wrong?


The sitter then knows if the information is true or not[or still unsure]! and i understand you would like proof.but we come to the most difficult bit here,what is proof regarding this,what is enough for one isnt enough for another.I want people to have an understanding of the process that i read for,tell them how i get the info etc.you will find this info about me on gordons site under,mediumship,how it works for me.i do not feel i have to or should prove anything to anyone but will try and help those in need.full stop,if they dont like my reading,believe it etc - ,-they wont come back.There are an awful lot of people who are unaware of cold reading who would be easily impressed by even a mediocre cold reading scam - it really is a powerful psychological technique that can cause people to hear things that were never really said.


despite the recent commotion going on here,i.ve never really had a chance to put across some my views.It is fine,ok,no problem to me to be sceptical ,we should not believe a psychic just because one claims to be so and it is wise to look properly at the reading given .nit-pick it,look at everything said.Indeed - a claim should be examined in order to discover the truth behind it. An extraordinary claim even more so.


so ,you see im with the sceptics somewhat,i just dont like the way they put some things and i do believe they are missing some vital points,in how working in energy really works,but it must be difficult to understand when one doesnt do it.Science can explain lots of things, but a generic "energy" is a meaningless term - what type of energy? Kinetic, potential, electromagnetic? You should define your terms in order for them to be accurately discussed.


I have no control on what a spirit wants to say,some readings are more detailed than others-read my post on gordons site and come back to me and we'll take it from there.All we need to know is
what you claim to do
under what conditions
to what degree of accuracy
and we can then go ahead and discuss further - past anecdotes do not interest us, as they are not capable of being objectively analysed.

[brianp]

Naive? no. i have never before looked into the spirit world from a scientific angle.

regarding all that evidence stuff, well yes i do have a degree in science and yes i am aware of the need for evidence. sadly of course anecdotes practically = lies or false memories, so i need to revise my understanding.

if you provide proof the GS' book is a work of fiction and that each and every of the anecdotes in it are false, i assure you i will accept it as fiction.

looks like it will come down to 'belief' in the meantime.

"Belief" is a dirty word - it means blindly accepting something without evidence, or even in spite of evidence to the contrary.

All the people I know who have degrees in scientific subjects (though admittedly they are almost all physicists with the odd chemist thrown in for good luck) look at everything from a scientific angle, they don't compartmentalise their lives the way you seem to.

I agree that I take it too far - I even find it difficult to poach an egg without having some understanding of the chemical changes taking place and I rarely take a medication without knowing at a basic level at least what it does - but I honestly find it extremely difficult to understand how anyone with any scientific training can accept anything as counter-inuitive as psychic phenomena without scientific evidence that the phenomenon is genuine.

I've never seen any evidence supporting such phenomena - none at all - anecdotes are all we ever get. When the phenomena are subject to scientific scrutiny they vanish. Don't you ever stop to ask yourself why?

And please remember that it is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist - so the onus of proof is always on the side alleging that some entity or phenomenon is real. And if you or anyone else demonstrated telepathy, telekinesis, psychic ability etc etc in a repeatable way under controlled conditions with experienced illusionists monitoring the procedings for trickery, I guarantee that there'd be a lot of very excited scientists and skeptics taking the subject very seriously indeed.

[Tin Lizzie]

[quote=brianp;18104
I've never seen any evidence supporting such phenomena - none at all - anecdotes are all we ever get. When the phenomena are subject to scientific scrutiny they vanish. Don't you ever stop to ask yourself why?

And please remember that it is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist - so the onus of proof is always on the side alleging that some entity or phenomenon is real. And if you or anyone else demonstrated telepathy, telekinesis, psychic ability etc etc in a repeatable way under controlled conditions with experienced illusionists monitoring the procedings for trickery, I guarantee that there'd be a lot of very excited scientists and skeptics taking the subject very seriously indeed.[/quote]

To answer your first question, i don't wonder why because i know that science is still behind nature (we only recently 'discovered' the neutron, electron etc.).

my own spiritual and paranormal experiences, along with those of people i know have, on their own, left me in absolutely no doubt of the presence of an afterlife and so i don't need science to prove this. It is a strong hope of mine that one day it will be possible to prove the existence of the afterlife scientifically but, and this has been pointed to on this forum by members of the SPR whose knowledge of relevant scientific studies is immensely more infinite than my own, some superb evidence has either been received with revulsion or silence. after all, no eminent scientist would like to discover, and even worse admit, that they are very likely to be wrong.

i have friends who have taken part in telepathy studies with profound results in favour of telepathy (okay that one's an anecdote), Gordon Smith himself mentions in his book 'the unbelievable truth' - and this was backed up by a member of the SPR - that he took part in telepathy experiments with eminent scientists. (links to follow here, bear with me if you may). i am also aware of ministry of defence tests on servicemen returning from front-line duty in Afghanistan, which also yielded 'interesting results' (again bear with me, this was recent and is probably still highly classified to say the least)

[Tin Lizzie]

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/17.4_sheldrake_morgana.pdf

[Tin Lizzie]

http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Telepathy/Nolan.html

okay, this involves a parrot, but the results are still very positive and interesting to say the least! food for further research.

[lara123]

hello bindleweed,in answer to your questions.

There is a difference between the 2 energys that i work with.
psychic and spititual.

when using psychic energy i am picking up/reading the energy of a person here[not spirit]we all emit energy and i can see it.but especially i can feel it rather well,i am especially talking about electromagnetic energy,my hands are extremely sensitive to it and if i scan a body i can feel the vibrations within the body and often feel areas that are too slow.too fast,an area of illness,or past illness and sometimes an illness that will break out.my natural psychic senses can tell me more also,information just pops into my head.not from an outside source but simply energy reading.i continually experiment doing this.A few yrs ago.i heard a whisper saying to me 'healing hands'a lot of psychics believe this to be from spirit,this ability to do this,maybe some can be contributed to that,but i dont know that myself,because when i do mediumship,i am feeling the energy from the spirit person.i often see them too,sometimes in a cloud of wiggley lines,sometimes a well-watered down/fluid view that is so difficult to see them but i usually can make out something,like their dress,hair,or there whole face.

when mediumship occurs,the presence of the spirit ,most of the time is very very strong so i then just wait for the info to come in.

so here is the difficulty in this,most people do not see/feel/sense energy on a regular basis.what one can see,another cannot and so on.my senses are sensitive naturally and spirit are able to connect with me because they can.i dont know all the answers why this is so,but i believe the main reason is because my energy is more expansive and receptable.

as of yet,no i dont recall a device measuring all this but i do believe one day all will become clear and prove this some way.thankyou.

to v-bloke-no,never,never can i select who comes through,i wish i could!there have been a handful of times that someone i've read for has not had a personal reading at all,but someone has come in and passed a message for someone else they know or vaguely know.i leave it up to them if they want to pass it on, as can be awkward,i dont encourage them to pass it on.it is totally out of my hands ,they do the choosing,not me.

what conditions? the best conditions are to do a reading for those who need one,this is a love energy,the link is love.

accuracy? because im reading a spirits energy and also they are throwing at me their energy/feelings,thoughts,pictures ,sometimes its clearer than others,i often pick up..say..a problem in the area of..say..2 sisters.but i may only get../sense/problem-2 sisters-calm.

hardly ever do i get the inbetween words of..and.to.the etc.sometimes its flows so well,other i have to assemble it myself,i may get a paragraph of info in one second,i already know what the info is,but can take a few mins to work down into my human senses and give it out.

accuracy-pretty darn good i'd say.perfection is impossible all the time in working in energy-yet!i'll look over some readings i've logged and can give you definate statements i've made and then give you the results.how many statements shall i look at,what about 100.do you want the statements also?i dont mind,but they will be from a a few mths back and i'll have to ask permission which im sure will be ok.

[Tin Lizzie]

That's silly. You're the one asserting that poltergeist phenomena are real and the onus of proof is always on the side of the positive assertion.

noted. sadly i'm going to have to wait until my knowledge & understanding of the scientific methods & procedures is sufficient for me to even begin to think of getting the real proof. in the meantime i'll just have to sit on the other side of the fence from you. i am content to believe that one day we will be able to prove all this scientifically, in the meantime...science isn't advanced enough to help me provide proof, i think.

[bindeweede]

lara123

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

[Matt]

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

Am I entitled to the opinion that only I should be entitled to an opinion?

[Admin]

I'm entitled to an opinion and similar comments are always used in debates and arguments. It's a complete red herring and doesn't actually mean anything from a debating point of view.

See: I'm entitled to my opinion (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=I_am_entitled_to_an_opinion.php).

Now someone will answer saying. "well that's your opinion to which you are entitled". ;D

Yes we're all entitled to an opinion but that does not make our argument any stronger or weaker - it's a pointless statement; but people use it as if it means something.

I find almost as annoying as credophiles claiming to have "open minds". ::)

[Tin Lizzie]

If i want your opinion, i'll give it to you heheh

[Matt]

Opinion has caused more trouble on this little earth than plagues or earthquakes

Voltaire

[Zaira]

"my own spiritual and paranormal experiences, along with those of people i know have, on their own, left me in absolutely no doubt of the presence of an afterlife and so i don't need science to prove this." - Tin Lizzie

May I ask the forum about alternate dimensions which I think has also be described as other realms. Is it possible that what some people believe is the after-life is another dimension or another realm?

[Tin Lizzie]

May I ask the forum about alternate dimensions which I think has also be described as other realms. Is it possible that what some people believe is the after-life is another dimension or another realm?


IMO (okaaaay, i know, it's opinion) as i've said before life, science and the afterlife must all exist in the same space - there is much reference in spiritual/medium/psychich material to 'frquencies' and 'vibrations'; spirits, angels and guides vibrate at frequencies way beyond our comprehension, thus it is difficult for them to slow down to our level so that we may see them. this explains to some extent how meditation/relaxation, and brain conditions during sleep, allow them to make contact more easily in these cases.

[Araneus]

May I ask the forum about alternate dimensions which I think has also be described as other realms. Is it possible that what some people believe is the after-life is another dimension or another realm?

Of course it is possible, but the question doesn't really mean anything without defining precisely what you mean by "dimension" and "realm".

Dimension is a mathematical term with a specific meaning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension), but can also be used more generally to refer to any kind of "alternate universe" (which in itself doesn't mean much without definition), whereas "realm" is a general term whose meaning depends entirely on context.

[Zaira]

Araneus,

The short answer would be that I don't really know what I mean by dimension and realm. Just somewhere in all my reading I have come across the terms, and then there is TV and it's science fiction programmes which refer to such things. And I just wondered if things like alternate dimensions and spiritual realms figured in the real world, and if they did, could they hold the key to the after-life?

[Araneus]

The short answer would be that I don't really know what I mean by dimension and realm. Just somewhere in all my reading I have come across the terms, and then there is TV and it's science fiction programmes which refer to such things.

Science fiction and general woo literature are similar in their use of "technobabble", which is basically the art of chucking technical-sounding words together in various combinations which sound impressive to the layman but to anybody who is familiar with the subject are complete gibberish.

For example, a sci-fi show may have a scene where sombody needs to hack into an important computer, and they will say things like "Quick, we must reverse the binary encryption bus to re-align the flux capacitor", which sounds "techy" but doesn't mean anything whatsoever. The situation is similar with woo literature and its use of "energy", "vibrations", "quantum", "dimensions" and so on.


And I just wondered if things like alternate dimensions and spiritual realms figured in the real world, and if they did, could they hold the key to the after-life? They could exist, but to discover this it would be necessary to (1) define precisely what such terms refer to, (2) devise a method for testing for the existence of such things, and then (3) successfully perform the test and observe positive results. Without the definition, we can't get past the first step.

[Tin Lizzie]

Sorry if this is the wrong thread but i think this (tachyon) is a link to what Zaira is getting at
https://www.tachyon-partners.com/support/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=129

tachyon travels faster than the speed of light & is speculated as being a future medium for instant communication. to me, this sounds like telepathy and could be the modus operandi for any comms between living & dead. just a thought (no pun), that's all

[Admin]

May I ask the forum about alternate dimensions which I think has also be described as other realms. Is it possible that what some people believe is the after-life is another dimension or another realm?

Surely the ideal people to ask are mediums?

They have a hotline to this place, wherever it is, and so surely they can pass on messages from the dead describing what it's like there etc.

I suspect, however, that we'll get as many different interpretations of the afterlife as there are mediums - and this is borne out when you look at descriptions from those who do try to explain what it's like.

It seems to be whatever you want it to be. ;)

[Matt]

Sorry if this is the wrong thread but i think this (tachyon) is a link to what Zaira is getting at
https://www.tachyon-partners.com/support/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=129

tachyon travels faster than the speed of light & is speculated as being a future medium for instant communication. to me, this sounds like telepathy and could be the modus operandi for any comms between living & dead. just a thought (no pun), that's all

But tachyons are quite literally imaginary... even if they exist :cheesy:

[Admin]

High quality paper there Tim. ;D

Tachyons are hypothetical. There's no evidence at all that they exist.

There's no evidence that telepathy exists either so you're simply making the fallacy of trying to explain one unknown with another unknown.

[Tin Lizzie]

8)

there's no scientific evidence. that doesn't mean there isn't any evidence.

there's more to life than science, just have a look. it's a big world out there O0

[Zaira]

Tin Lizzie,

All I can say about that is Oooooo pretty pictures. :smiley:
Sorry, I'll have to read it a few more times before I can comment. Or….. Maybe someone can explain it to me. :smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

;D interesting how nobody here seems to want to answer my queries on how they would react to messages from spirit.

also interesting how i have friends who have participated in controlled telepathy studies (as has GS), yet the skeptic response is to look down on these and resort to 'humour'O0

It's all about what you want/don't want to see ;D

[Zaira]

Araneus,

Shame. I thought I was onto something there. ;)

[Admin]

there's more to life than science, just have a look. it's a big world out there O0

Thanks for that enlightenment. ::)

[Tin Lizzie]

Tin Lizzie,



All I can say about that is Oooooo pretty pictures. :smiley:


Sorry, I'll have to read it a few more times before I can comment. Or….. Maybe someone can explain it to me. :smiley:

I wouldn't worry too much, but yes those are pretty pics.

This is what happens when you put an idea forward to septics, they jump on a high horse, close their minds and ridicule things.

they seem to forget that the greatest discoveries begin with a creative and enquiring human mind, one which is not afraid to explore the 'impossible'

I'm reminded of a quote by old Roosevelt:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

[Admin]

This is what happens when you put an idea forward to septics, they jump on a high horse, close their minds and ridicule things.

That may have something to do with the fact that your argument is ridiculous (!)

You're trying to claim that tachyons could be the answer to how telepathy works!

First you'd have to show that telepathy is real (and no attempt has ever succeeded) AND you'd have to show that tachyons are also real (they are hypothetical) before postulating them as an explanation.

If you can't see what a nonsensical argument it is that you're making then no wonder you believe the things you do.

[Tin Lizzie]

Read my original post and you will see that i make no 'claim' about anything. I am simply saying it is a possibility, which i will gladly retract if you provide evidence to the contrary.

Telepathy has been validated quite strongly, and i am sure you are aware of evidence from controlle studies supporting this.

[Admin]

Are you asking me to prove that things don't exist again? ;D

I'm aware of flawed studies that show telepathy exists (like the Sheldrake stuff you linked to) but I'm not aware of any high quality studies that do.

If you have some decent evidence, I'm sure we'd all like to hear of it. O0

[Tin Lizzie]

Plenty of stuff on google.
How are the links i provided flawed, to the extent that their results are invalid?
Obviously my only other evidence comes down to anecdotes.
Seeing as it is not my intention to force my knowledge on others, i am quite happy for you to take the stance that their tests were flawed/their memory was flawed/their ability to tell the truth was flawed.
Shame, really. O0

[tolman]

my own spiritual and paranormal experiences, along with those of people i know have, on their own, left me in absolutely no doubt of the presence of an afterlife and so i don't need science to prove this. It is a strong hope of mine that one day it will be possible to prove the existence of the afterlife scientifically but, and this has been pointed to on this forum by members of the SPR whose knowledge of relevant scientific studies is immensely more infinite than my own, some superb evidence has either been received with revulsion or silence. after all, no eminent scientist would like to discover, and even worse admit, that they are very likely to be wrong.
That's strange logic. You claim you don't need science to prove what you believe, yet you lavish praise on people who you suggest have provided that proof, even though it doesn't exactly seem to have impressed many (any?) scientists who didn't have a prior propensity to believe in it.
You then suggest that the lack of adulation from scientists in general is because they can't bear the possibility they were wrong, on a subject that few, if any of them have any professional investment in, and about which few will have ever made any public statements, yet you don't seem to consider the reverse case, that of people with a prior belief not exactly being the best judges of evidence for unusual phenomena.


i am also aware of ministry of defence tests on servicemen returning from front-line duty in Afghanistan, which also yielded 'interesting results' (again bear with me, this was recent and is probably still highly classified to say the least)
You're talking about highly classified things yet you're not worried about an early-morning-call from TPTB?

Rather like a certain person's claims of there being evidence for her abilities which was not available for public consumption, any claim of secret supporting evidence is a claim of zero evidential value.

[tolman]

IMO (okaaaay, i know, it's opinion) as i've said before life, science and the afterlife must all exist in the same space - there is much reference in spiritual/medium/psychich material to 'frquencies' and 'vibrations'; spirits, angels and guides vibrate at frequencies way beyond our comprehension, thus it is difficult for them to slow down to our level so that we may see them. this explains to some extent how meditation/relaxation, and brain conditions during sleep, allow them to make contact more easily in these cases.
Exactly what kind of science do you teach?

As far as 'vibrations beyond our comprehension' are concerned, are you talking about electromagnetic 'vibrations' (somewhere beyond gamma rays), mechanical 'vibrations', or some other kind of vibration of a nature that's beyond our comprehension, as well as being of an incomprehensible frequency, yet which psychics seem mysteriously to have just enough insight into to claim it exists, yet not enough to be any more informative on the issue?

[Tin Lizzie]

That's strange logic. You claim you don't need science to prove what you believe, yet you lavish praise on people who you suggest have provided that proof, even though it doesn't exactly seem to have impressed many (any?) scientists who didn't have a prior propensity to believe in it.
You then suggest that the lack of adulation from scientists in general is because they can't bear the possibility they were wrong, on a subject that few, if any of them have any professional investment in, and about which few will have ever made any public statements, yet you don't seem to consider the reverse case, that of people with a prior belief not exactly being the best judges of evidence for unusual phenomena.


You're talking about highly classified things yet you're not worried about an early-morning-call from TPTB?

Rather like a certain person's claims of there being evidence for her abilities which was not available for public consumption, any claim of secret supporting evidence is a claim of zero evidential value.

your distortion and misinterpretation of my statement is indeed typical of those who can not acknowledge the validity of certain individuals' experience and who are indeed afraid of being shown to be wrong.
Have you ever considered a reading yourself, to further satisfy your obvious zest for knowledge?
What do you make of the remarkable accuracy of certain mediums and their readings? I accept that many are so vague as to be rendered inconclusive however there are many cases where very precise information has been passed on.
As for my own beliefs, they were none existent and i was a thorough sceptic at one point. Either way i don't see how a sceptic makes a better judge. Objectivity is required in both cases.
Give me one reason why i should be worried about a call from TPTB.
There is much (i fear a repetition of one of my previous posts is necessary, as you seem to have ignored it for some reason) evidence available to support telepathic ability, but i am most interested in this recent research and am surprised nobody here has heard of it.
Essentially, everything you have said here has no basis; once you actually carry out some thorough research i am sure you will become aware of this.

[Tin Lizzie]

Exactly what kind of science do you teach?

As far as 'vibrations beyond our comprehension' are concerned, are you talking about electromagnetic 'vibrations' (somewhere beyond gamma rays), mechanical 'vibrations', or some other kind of vibration of a nature that's beyond our comprehension, as well as being of an incomprehensible frequency, yet which psychics seem mysteriously to have just enough insight into to claim it exists, yet not enough to be any more informative on the issue?

You clearly have no knowlegde of the national curriculum for science, which does not concern itself with the afterlife in any way.

[Admin]

As for my own beliefs, they were none existent and i was a thorough sceptic at one point.

You mean you disbelieved once?

Disbelieving in something does not make you a skeptic.

[Tin Lizzie]

You mean you disbelieved once?

Disbelieving in something does not make you a skeptic.

disbelieved what?
i don't think i have ever claimed to be a sceptic. wary by nature and certainly sceptical, but definitely not a bona-fide sceptic.

[Tin Lizzie]

As for my own beliefs, they were none existent and i was a thorough sceptic at one point. .

whoo-oops. i made the mistake of putting myself in the same category as people such as those found in abundance on this forum. rather, i found it difficult to believe in God.

[Araneus]

You clearly have no knowlegde of the national curriculum for science, which does not concern itself with the afterlife in any way.

If you are indeed a "science" teacher, then that fact has to be the single most damning indictment of the British "educational" system that I have ever encountered.

The only way that somebody with your demonstrated lack of understanding of the scientific method, the burden of proof and the definition and use of evidence, along with your obvious disdain for those who demand more than "I feel therefore I know" as a justification for superstitious beliefs, could teach science is if the job involves nothing more than encouraging students to memorise facts from a textbook. Which sadly, I suspect it does.

[Tin Lizzie]

If you are indeed a "science" teacher, then that fact has to be the single most damning indictment of the British "educational" system that I have ever encountered.

The only way that somebody with your demonstrated lack of understanding of the scientific method, the burden of proof and the definition and use of evidence, along with your obvious disdain for those who demand more than "I feel therefore I know" as a justification for superstitious beliefs, could teach science is if the job involves nothing more than encouraging students to memorise facts from a textbook. Which sadly, I suspect it does.

whoo-ops that's a nice little ad-hom! well once again what you personally suspect, based upon your own perception of what you construe to be evidence, is wrong.
Sadly for you I am actually a very good science teacher and the results of my pupils across KS3 and KS4 prove this.
I make a better science teacher than you ever will because my lessons ignore dogma and rely on creativity to put science across in ways relevant to people's lives. Given that you have put forward a very strong case for your lack of ability to think for yourself, i can't ever imagine you being a teacher of anything at all.
If you would like to further ridicule my professional status, you can PM me, we can arrange a meet where you can see me 'in action' so to speak, and i will give you a very thorough lesson in the immense capabilities of the human mind and body.
I expect you will not take me up on this....does that mean i am psychic?
Your statments are baseless and quite idiotic. What is it you do for a living?

[lara123]

certain person me yes? firstly when i offered to give example of some readings i was ignored.

I do not pretend to have all the answers and know it all,in fact i know little in the grand scale of things.but i know a bit,because i have the sensations, the visions ,and the spirit contact.


I do not have a hotline to spirit, i cannot contact them at all,they contact me ,they think im just a bit useful to them at times.Im a medium who does not know how ALL the mechanics work,i dont believe i ever will,but i know what has happened to me and how i receive it,and a few other bits and bobs.

scientists do not know everything about science

doctors do not know everything about medicine

I have a young son with a condition.I have spoken with many 'experts'.On diagnosis there was no prognosis,because they could,nt.They told me what they already knew,they told me a lot of maybes,this may happen or not etc,and they didnt always know why.

I may connect,i maynot,i give what i get ,the information varies,some bits are difficult to receive,some are easy,sometimes i have to work it out,there is room for error via misinterpretation.
some parts can be vague,some can be uncannily detailed.

I think a medium would need to be tested several several times,to give a clearer outcome,because of the energies used ,the mediums energy also can affect a reading if one is stressed etc.

do not think i am against you,i am not:smiley: i am trying to learn from you.What exactly do you call evidence,im struggling with the repeat and repeat thing here with the same results,every spirit has a different energy,says different things and the two different energies merging , that can never be repeated ,so im thinking we can only go on the information supplied,and say you go to a medium where the info is the lovey dovey thing doesnt mean it is false.what im saying is then,even if some true statements are said,how do we really judge this.we do need the true statements to verify ,yes,but there may be only two in a reading.Or am i missing something here,if you went to a medium and had two true statements,and you knew they couldnt have got that information elsewhere,then that is enough for you ?or at least to make you think twice somewhat.

These questions are for anyone. many thanks.

[Araneus]

Sadly for you I am actually a very good science teacher and the results of my pupils across KS3 and KS4 prove this.

If you read my comment carefully you will notice that I was criticising the educational system, not your particular ability to function as part of it. The fact that your pupils achieve good results as measured by the system casts no light on the value of that system as a whole.

I am quite sure that you are more than capable of teaching your students to successfully regurgitate the government-approved politically-correct hogwash that is enthusiastically peddled as "knowledge" these days.


I make a better science teacher than you ever will because my lessons ignore dogma and rely on creativity to put science across in ways relevant to people's lives. Given that you have put forward a very strong case for your lack of ability to think for yourself, i can't ever imagine you being a teacher of anything at all.I don't doubt that I would be a dreadful teacher, and you may well be creative and engaging in your approach, but this doesn't forgive your lack of understanding of the scientific method. Nobody who knew the first thing about objective scientific investigations would come out with something as laughable as "experience is the best form of evidence", or repeatedly assume that other scientists' inability to disprove your beliefs means that they are true.


If you would like to further ridicule my professional status, you can PM me, we can arrange a meet where you can see me 'in action' so to speak, and i will give you a very thorough lesson in the immense capabilities of the human mind and body. I expect you will not take me up on this....does that mean i am psychic?I guess you must be psychic then.;D How else could you guess that I have little interest in travelling around the country to observe demonstrations of the teaching techniques of people I have never met?


What is it you do for a living?Not that it really matters, but I am a software developer. This might explain why I have no tolerance for sloppy illogical thinking and unstructured babble masquerading as argument. Many of your posts are the verbal equivalent of attempting to write a functional program by randomly entering keywords in blind faith, with no understanding of their meaning or function.

[tolman]

You clearly have no knowlegde of the national curriculum for science, which does not concern itself with the afterlife in any way.
I'd have thought the science curriculum did cover the subject of 'vibrations', unless it has really gone down the toilet big time in the last [mumble] years.
People using scientific terms in a seemingly scientifically meaningless way do rather run the risk of looking like pseudoscientists.

[Tin Lizzie]

If you read my comment carefully you will notice that I was criticising the educational system, not your particular ability to function as part of it. The fact that your pupils achieve good results as measured by the system casts no light on the value of that system as a whole.

I am quite sure that you are more than capable of teaching your students to successfully regurgitate the government-approved politically-correct hogwash that is enthusiastically peddled as "knowledge" these days.

I don't doubt that I would be a dreadful teacher, and you may well be creative and engaging in your approach, but this doesn't forgive your lack of understanding of the scientific method. Nobody who knew the first thing about objective scientific investigations would come out with something as laughable as "experience is the best form of evidence", or repeatedly assume that other scientists' inability to disprove your beliefs means that they are true.

I guess you must be psychic then.;D How else could you guess that I have little interest in travelling around the country to observe demonstrations of the teaching techniques of people I have never met?

Not that it really matters, but I am a software developer. This might explain why I have no tolerance for sloppy illogical thinking and unstructured babble masquerading as argument. Many of your posts are the verbal equivalent of attempting to write a functional program by randomly entering keywords in blind faith, with no understanding of their meaning or function.

Hmm...i am getting a picture.....of....someone who spends very little time outdoors ;)

Read what I said again.
My spiritual knowledge is separate from my job. it would be completely unpro to behave otherwise.
You talk about 'government-approved politically-correct Hogwash. What the heck do you know about what teachers think, or even care, for this?
You great big doofus.
Not only am I successful in teaching my pupils the basics of experimentation, observation and reproducibility, i am also very good at 'bringing these to life'
Anything else?

[Tin Lizzie]

I'd have thought the science curriculum did cover the subject of 'vibrations', unless it has really gone down the toilet big time in the last [mumble] years.
People using scientific terms in a seemingly scientifically meaningless way do rather run the risk of looking like pseudoscientists.

funnily enough there are such parallels between the spirit world and conventional physics, only the interpretation may often vary, to say the least. what is it you do for a living?

[tolman]

your distortion and misinterpretation of my statement is indeed typical of those who can not acknowledge the validity of certain individuals' experience and who are indeed afraid of being shown to be wrong.
Personally, I'd prefer it if people accusing me of misrepresenting them took the trouble to point out what they wrote and what I wrote, and show where I went wrong.
If they're unable or unwilling to do that, I'd tend to conclude they're just whining in an attempt to avoid discussion, like certain other people I could mention.
In any case, if they're not specific, they're wasting my time.

Give me one reason why i should be worried about a call from TPTB.
If you were really talking about some top-secret experiment, certain people might be interested in how you got to hear of it.
Of course, if you don't honestly believe the rumour about MoD research, or you were so distant from any supposed source that the rumour would be worthless you probably wouldn't be worried.

In any case, the main point I made was that claims of secret evidence are worth nothing, which is true.

[tolman]

What do you make of the remarkable accuracy of certain mediums and their readings? I accept that many are so vague as to be rendered inconclusive however there are many cases where very precise information has been passed on.
Which mediums?
Which properly-controlled experiments did they take part in that showed them to be genuine?
Why was it not front-page news? Are all the newspapers and TV stations in the hands of skeptical scientists with too much to lose?
Why does the media seem to be full of cheap fake psychics if there are any real ones?

[tolman]

funnily enough there are such parallels between the spirit world and conventional physics, only the interpretation may often vary, to say the least.
An awful lot of pseudoscience is built on some vague analogy to actual science, but that doesn't mean anything other than that's what the pseudoscience was built on.
It's possible to draw parallels between Hogwarts and an actual school, but that doesn't mean that Harry Potter exists, just that J K Rowling had some idea what real schools are like.

[Melanie]

Which mediums?
Which properly-controlled experiments did they take part in that showed them to be genuine?
Why was it not front-page news? Are all the newspapers and TV stations in the hands of skeptical scientists with too much to lose?
Why does the media seem to be full of cheap fake psychics if there are any real ones?


The SPR journals are full of proper experiments - google cross-correspondences for an example of a particularly interesting sequence.

For the most part, all evidence provided by mediums is of the 'personal' variety, and thus is never going to convince anyone but the recipient. There's plenty such evidence for belief documented by scientists - sadly, no proof for the general populace.

Your last point - an analogy would be the frugal country pastor versus the TV evangelist. Simple really. The mediums with morals don't broadcast their abilities.

Bear in mind I don't believe in an afterlife or that mediums talk to the dead, but I understand why people do and can sympathise.

[Bat E Bird]

To big e bird,thankyou for writing.firstly how you present what we should do,with the questions,is not the way i work.

being a medium,i only get the infomation then deliver it,this information coming several ways and not in the language we know.i only know how to listen to spirit,not conduct a 2 way conversation.

The sitter then knows if the information is true or not[or still unsure]! and i understand you would like proof.but we come to the most difficult bit here,what is proof regarding this,what is enough for one isnt enough for another.I want people to have an understanding of the process that i read for,tell them how i get the info etc.you will find this info about me on gordons site under,mediumship,how it works for me.i do not feel i have to or should prove anything to anyone but will try and help those in need.full stop,if they dont like my reading,believe it etc - ,-they wont come back.

despite the recent commotion going on here,i.ve never really had a chance to put across some my views.It is fine,ok,no problem to me to be sceptical ,we should not believe a psychic just because one claims to be so and it is wise to look properly at the reading given .nit-pick it,look at everything said.

so ,you see im with the sceptics somewhat,i just dont like the way they put some things and i do believe they are missing some vital points,in how working in energy really works,but it must be difficult to understand when one doesnt do it.

I have no control on what a spirit wants to say,some readings are more detailed than others-read my post on gordons site and come back to me and we'll take it from there.

Hi lara123

Thank you for your reply.

I've read the thread you mentioned but, as I haven't really read much on the subject before, found it confusing.

I understand that answering straightforward questions doesn't really work because, if I've understood some of what you've said, you have no control over what information you receive.

I would like a reading as I've never had one before but what do you need from me? I.e will just a name or photo do?

I know you don't need to prove yourself to anyone but I would be grateful if you could just tell me some things that I know you can't possibly know or research about me.

I don't want to know anything at all about my future because I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life waiting for something to happen or looking over my shoulder. I prefer to be in control of my own life - whatever mess I may make of it ;D. It's worked out fine so far anyway.

It's up to you what you tell me. I will be honest about what's accurate and what isn't but please give me an idea about what sort of information you normally give.

Thanks

:smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

Personally, I'd prefer it if people accusing me of misrepresenting them took the trouble to point out what they wrote and what I wrote, and show where I went wrong.
If they're unable or unwilling to do that, I'd tend to conclude they're just whining in an attempt to avoid discussion, like certain other people I could mention.
In any case, if they're not specific, they're wasting my time.

Okay, well my IT skills aren't top class so i will just refer you to the bit in your previous statement regarding words to the effect that most normal people would have been able to act, given the explosion of a hand-grenade and the bursts of automatic gunfire. Now, we were in a thriving business city in the middle of the friday morning rush-hour. The US embassy was on a major cross-roads opposite a the busiest train station in Kenya; the place was teeming with cars and people. The last thing i saw before responding to this voice were the dense crowds of people on the other side of the road (i was on the same side as the embassy) looking across towards the embassy. if they had been capable of this decision-making they chose not to use it, and paid dearly for it - i saw this afterwards.
my own friends were also incapable of acting, even though they too had heard these noises. my best bud was certainly no mug, he went on to serve in Afghanistan, as a machine-gunner.
This was my main point of contention and i am sure that you can understand how i may take exception to having these things questioned in the way you did.

If you were really talking about some top-secret experiment, certain people might be interested in how you got to hear of it.
Of course, if you don't honestly believe the rumour about MoD research, or you were so distant from any supposed source that the rumour would be worthless you probably wouldn't be worried.

I didn't say it was 'top secret' did i? it goes without saying that MOD wotk is often classified to say the least. my information came from my previously mentioned best mate, who had heard of it after coming back from Afghanistan and who went into detail about the protocols. I read a brief newspaper article, but sad to say i can't recall anything else and i have to let it lay with the rest of the 'evidence'.

In any case, the main point I made was that claims of secret evidence are worth nothing, which is true.

Rumours abound, of course they do. supposing the telepathy experiment did take place and supposing its findings were signigicantly supportive of telepathy, i doubt we would here about it for the time being.

[Araneus]

My spiritual knowledge is separate from my job. it would be completely unpro to behave otherwise.

Correction: your spiritual beliefs are separate from your job. You don't have any spiritual "knowledge".


Not only am I successful in teaching my pupils the basics of experimentation, observation and reproducibilityAnd yet, for some reason your spiritual beliefs are not subject to and do not require such a process, and that others who insist on applying the same are "closed minded skeptics" who "can't think for themselves".

[tolman]

Rumours abound, of course they do. supposing the telepathy experiment did take place and supposing its findings were signigicantly supportive of telepathy, i doubt we would here about it for the time being.
Tin Lizzie.
It really isn't hard to use the 'preview' button to check out posts to make sure things have been 'quoted' in some kind of meaningful fashion.
Where you (in this thread) claimed I was misrepresenting you, the line of conversation was nothing whatever to do with embassies or bombings, but to do with your lavish praise for scientists supposedly providing evidence for psychic effects, and your disdain for any scientists who dared to disbelieve them (or even not pay them any attention).
If you were really referring to topics from entirely different threads, I'm afraid I'm not psychic enough to see that.
See what happens when you don't make it clear what you're talking about?

[tolman]

I didn't say it was 'top secret' did i? it goes without saying that MOD wotk is often classified to say the least. my information came from my previously mentioned best mate, who had heard of it after coming back from Afghanistan and who went into detail about the protocols.
Well, excuse me if I wasn't up to speed on the precise grades of classification. Maybe by 'highly classified to say the least', you only meant 'secret' rather than 'top secret'.

No doubt no-one would be concerned if your mate was only blabbering about secret experiments, which he'd heard about from other people.

[Tin Lizzie]

Correction: your spiritual beliefs are separate from your job. You don't have any spiritual "knowledge".



Would you like to provide your evidence for this? I do have spiritual knowledge, thanks very much.

[Tin Lizzie]

Well, excuse me if I wasn't up to speed on the precise grades of classification. Maybe by 'highly classified to say the least', you only meant 'secret' rather than 'top secret'.

No doubt no-one would be concerned if your mate was only blabbering about secret experiments, which he'd heard about from other people.

no doubt would be really concerned if you were just blabbering on about things. i'm certainly not. O0

[Tin Lizzie]

Tin Lizzie.
It really isn't hard to use the 'preview' button to check out posts to make sure things have been 'quoted' in some kind of meaningful fashion.
Where you (in this thread) claimed I was misrepresenting you, the line of conversation was nothing whatever to do with embassies or bombings, but to do with your lavish praise for scientists supposedly providing evidence for psychic effects, and your disdain for any scientists who dared to disbelieve them (or even not pay them any attention).
If you were really referring to topics from entirely different threads, I'm afraid I'm not psychic enough to see that.
See what happens when you don't make it clear what you're talking about?

See what happens when you don't read it clear before you talk about it?

I have had some brilliant debates with people on here who i would -on present evidence- dare say are far more knowledgeable than yourself. As for 'disdain', well i only have disdain for those who are incapable of articulating their questions in an appropriate manner.

[Araneus]

Would you like to provide your evidence for this? I do have spiritual knowledge, thanks very much.

It follows from the definition of knowledge as being something which is factual, i.e. supported by evidence or provably true. Since the existence of a spirit world is not supported by evidence or provably true, beliefs about its existence cannot possibly be "knowledge".

Opinions, beliefs, hypotheses, anecdotes, hunches, gut feelings, hairs on the back of your neck, voices in your head and paranormal claims made on edited TV shows are not knowledge, no matter how strongly you may hold them or how desperately you claim that they are facts.

[Tin Lizzie]

It follows from the definition of knowledge as being something which is factual, i.e. supported by evidence or provably true. Since the existence of a spirit world is not supported by evidence or provably true, beliefs about its existence cannot possibly be "knowledge".

Opinions, beliefs, hypotheses, anecdotes, hunches, gut feelings, hairs on the back of your neck, voices in your head and paranormal claims made on edited TV shows are not knowledge, no matter how strongly you may hold them or how desperately you claim that they are facts.

that is your belief & i won't seek to change it; don't seek to change mine.

you forgot to add 'communication with spirit' onto your list ;)

I know what i have experienced, therfore it is knowledge. Just because you do not have the same knowledge, why do you feel so determined to disagree? is it because you feel inferior or something?

[Melanie]

I know what i have experienced, therfore it is knowledge. Just because you do not have the same knowledge, why do you feel so determined to disagree? is it because you feel inferior or something?

TL, it's semantics. You believe because of the evidence you have accumulated. You cannot possibly know that survival is a fact.

[Tin Lizzie]

TL, it's semantics. You believe because of the evidence you have accumulated. You cannot possibly know that survival is a fact.

Thanks, Melanie. At least i've learned a new word here:smiley:

Well if i may wax philosophical just a little...

suppose you lived in a country where swans were white (and in a time before international communication!). You would, understanably, assume that all swans everywhere were white. or, you would not at all consider that there may be black swans.

Supposing then, that someone came along from another land and claimed that in their land there were black swans as well as white swans.

Would you believe them?

How could they prove this to you......? :smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

Melanie, after reading your fantastic story about the yorkshire puddings, i find it surprising that you choose not to 'believe'!

I am not questioning why or anything, i just find it surprising!

Thanks for your feedback

[Araneus]

Supposing then, that someone came along from another land and claimed that in their land there were black swans as well as white swans.
Would you believe them?
How could they prove this to you......? :smiley:

They could easily prove this.

They could provide photographic evidence of the existence of the black swans, or perhaps even bring one with them. They could offer a tour of their country which included visiting the black swans in their native habitat. If these were not practical, they could provide partial evidence by collecting some of the discarded feathers from the black swans, and showing that they were biologically similar to white swans in this country and therefore most likely came from another swan. Failing that, they could provide detailed information about the habitat, behaviour and predators of the black swans, to demonstrate that the concept of a black swan is not extraordinary and fits comfortably with our knowledge of biology; this would not in itself prove that they existed, but would show that they could exist thus lending weight to their collective testimony that black swans exist.

What they could not convincingly get away with is baldly stating that they once saw something vaguely black and swan-shaped, and therefore knew for a fact that black swans existed even though nobody could demonstrate any evidence of their existence, their country was in the middle of the Sahara and therefore did not provide any suitable habitat for swans, their fellow countrymen all had completely different views of what a swan actually was and were drunk most of the time anyway, and to cap it all they were desperate to sell their land to a group of influential ornithologists and therefore had a strong vested interest in the black swans being real.

[Melanie]

Thanks, Melanie. At least i've learned a new word here:smiley:

Well if i may wax philosophical just a little...

suppose you lived in a country where swans were white (and in a time before international communication!). You would, understanably, assume that all swans everywhere were white. or, you would not at all consider that there may be black swans.

Supposing then, that someone came along from another land and claimed that in their land there were black swans as well as white swans.

Would you believe them?

How could they prove this to you......? :smiley:

I would probably believe them, because it would be possible for them to prove it by taking me to their country and showing me a black swan, or bringing the black swan to me. I get the analogy.

Applying this to 'the other side' doesn't work however, at least for me, because I can't get to the 'other side', and those on the other side can't come to me.

Next question...:smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

I would probably believe them, because it would be possible for them to prove it by taking me to their country and showing me a black swan, or bringing the black swan to me. I get the analogy.

Applying this to 'the other side' doesn't work however, at least for me, because I can't get to the 'other side', and those on the other side can't come to me.

Next question...:smiley:

This is where we need a bona-fide medium. Calling Lara123...

[Melanie]

Melanie, after reading your fantastic story about the yorkshire puddings, i find it surprising that you choose not to 'believe'!

I am not questioning why or anything, i just find it surprising!

Thanks for your feedback

I don't 'believe' because this would involve a conscious decision on my part to take a leap of faith. I am not that sort of person. I don't fall into belief. I prefer to know. The evidence - which is largely words coming from the mouths of mediums - just isn't strong enough for me to accept it as absolute proof.

I have mulled this over for a couple of decades now, and I have come to the conclusion that mediumistic readings will never give me - or anyone else - that Proof.

I sympathise with believers because I understand that belief in an afterlife is very hard to let go, because of its emotional content. Turning away from it means turning away from all the deceased relatives who have been trying so hard to let one know they survive in another plane. Maybe the guilt involved is what keeps people believing, though they would never identify it as guilt. Maybe also it's fear that keeps people believing - terrified at the thought of nothingness when they die.

I have no guilt, because if there really is an afterlife, when I get there I know my rellies will forgive me for my doubt. If they really are watching me, they will have been supportive of and even interested by the intellectual path I have been on, whilst investigating this subject. They will agree with my reasons for not 'believing'. And I have no fear of nothingness - how can it be feared? I cannot conceive of not being conscious any more, of never being conscious again, and anything that mind-boggling becomes disturbing when you think about it long enough, but I'm bright enough to realise I won't be bothered by it when it finally happens to me!

My philosophy is to live life now. I do absolutely know that I will die, and so I try to be a good friend, a mother/grandmother who will be remembered. And I try to spend as much time doing what satisfies me emotionally; writing, art, photography - family history research to leave for my children/grandchildren.

Anyway - what benefit would belief be to me anyway? Would it make me a better person? Maybe the fear of retribution would have prevented me from making some of the mistakes I have made in my life, but I haven't turned out that badly for a non-believer. I have spent my life learning from my mistakes, instead of being wary of taking risks.

[Tin Lizzie]

They could easily prove this.

They could provide photographic evidence of the existence of the black swans, or perhaps even bring one with them. They could offer a tour of their country which included visiting the black swans in their native habitat. If these were not practical, they could provide partial evidence by collecting some of the discarded feathers from the black swans, and showing that they were biologically similar to white swans in this country and therefore most likely came from another swan. Failing that, they could provide detailed information about the habitat, behaviour and predators of the black swans, to demonstrate that the concept of a black swan is not extraordinary and fits comfortably with our knowledge of biology; this would not in itself prove that they existed, but would show that they could exist thus lending weight to their collective testimony that black swans exist.

What they could not convincingly get away with is baldly stating that they once saw something vaguely black and swan-shaped, and therefore knew for a fact that black swans existed even though nobody could demonstrate any evidence of their existence, their country was in the middle of the Sahara and therefore did not provide any suitable habitat for swans, their fellow countrymen all had completely different views of what a swan actually was and were drunk most of the time anyway, and to cap it all they were desperate to sell their land to a group of influential ornithologists and therefore had a strong vested interest in the black swans being real.
;D

My presumption that you would make the connection between a lack of international communication and any likely concurrent technological advances was obviously mistaken.

In essence, my point is science & the spirit world are, at the moment, incompatible.

No, i'll rephrase that - it's scientists and the spirit world who are incompatible. Watch out!>:D

[Melanie]

"My presumption that you would make the connection between a lack of international communication and any likely concurrent technological advances was obviously mistaken."

I seem to recall reading this anology somewhere early in the tomes of psychical research, possibly referring to the idea that the perfect medium would be the 'one black swan' that would be able to convince the world of the reality of an afterlife. (I could be wrong.)

"In essence, my point is science & the spirit world are, at the moment, incompatible. No, i'll rephrase that - it's scientists and the spirit world who are incompatible. Watch out!"

Well, of course, you can only say that if you believe the spirit world exists! ;)

[Tin Lizzie]

Well, of course, you can only say that if you believe the spirit world exists! ;)

Know being my chosen operative word, as opposed to believe O0

[tolman]

See what happens when you don't read it clear before you talk about it?
So, you consider that it makes sense to mix up entirely different threads, and make comments on one about what people said on another without any attempt to make it clear that's what you were doing?

You still haven't explained how or where I was misrepresenting you. You've also accused me [on another thread] of implying you were a liar without explaining that either.


I have had some brilliant debates with people on here who i would -on present evidence- dare say are far more knowledgeable than yourself.
From what I've seen so far, your assessment of other people's brilliance does rather seem to correlate with whether they say what you want to hear.

[Tin Lizzie]

So, you consider that it makes sense to mix up entirely different threads, and make comments on one about what people said on another without any attempt to make it clear that's what you were doing?

You still haven't explained how or where I was misrepresenting you. You've also accused me [on another thread] of implying you were a liar without explaining that either.


From what I've seen so far, your assessment of other people's brilliance does rather seem to correlate with whether they say what you want to hear.

Okay. i may well have crossed threads but i believed that we had still managed to get our respective messages across.

It is difficult to guage people's intentions in the absence of body language, tone etc. I seem to have misinterpreted your questions as being hostile. Let me make this clear: I apologise for this.

Just before coming on to your original post regarding the bomb story, i had been involved with a very bitter exchange where my professional ability was criticised. i consulted the moderators but was nonetheless left in a very negative frame of mind.

I am grateful for your interest in this, even if you are trying to disprove something.

May we start afresh?

[lara123]

Hi lara123

Thank you for your reply.

I've read the thread you mentioned but, as I haven't really read much on the subject before, found it confusing.

I understand that answering straightforward questions doesn't really work because, if I've understood some of what you've said, you have no control over what information you receive.

I would like a reading as I've never had one before but what do you need from me? I.e will just a name or photo do?

I know you don't need to prove yourself to anyone but I would be grateful if you could just tell me some things that I know you can't possibly know or research about me.

I don't want to know anything at all about my future because I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life waiting for something to happen or looking over my shoulder. I prefer to be in control of my own life - whatever mess I may make of it ;D. It's worked out fine so far anyway.

It's up to you what you tell me. I will be honest about what's accurate and what isn't but please give me an idea about what sort of information you normally give.

Thanks

:smiley:'
evening-i dont know what may come thro.there is no' normal' ,as i am a medium and planned to give readings to people in need,indeed you may get nothing.or perhaps you will.i will contact you soon,i have people waiting first but i am happy to see if anything comes up.i will be in touch.thankyou again.

[brianp]

;D interesting how nobody here seems to want to answer my queries on how they would react to messages from spirit.

How would I react? Well I can tell you how I did react to purported messages from my deceased grandfather. Initially I was extremely puzzled and disturbed, but as I gradually figured how it was done I became more and more impressed by the psychic's outstanding abilities. Not his psychic ability mark you, but rather his skill at cold reading and his understanding of human psychology.

What happened was this. Way back in the 70s I met a young lady at a friend's house. Next day, a Sunday, I turned up at her house hoping to resume the brief relationship but she was getting ready to go to church - apparently it was a very special service and she really wanted to attend. Not to be put off, I said I would go with her - and only then did I discover that her church was Newburn Spiritualist Church and the special service was a visit from some world-renowned psychic.

Despite my desire to hide at the back, we were shown to the front row and when the psychic started he came straight to me and was soon telling me about my grandfather who died two years earlier - his name, his occupation, his religious beliefs etc - and even about what he'd left me in his will. Amazing stuff, and as I said, I was puzzled and disturbed. There was no way he could have researched this stuff in advance because he didn't know I'd be there, the lass I was with didn't know I'd turn up at her door and come with her - nobody could have anticipated my presence in that room. So I was really beginning to think that maybe the guy was for real - what other explanation was there?

But then I went over the experience in detail in my mind as best I could, and, although I'd never heard of cold reading, it was soon clear that he'd very cleverly steared me to provide the information by getting me to confirm or refute his hints or suggestions - explicitly or implicitly, by words or body language - without my even being aware of it. And he did it so smoothly that his many misses barely made an impression while his few hits were unmissible.

There are still one or two things he said which I cannot explain, but I put that down to my imperfect memory of the conversation. Having figured how he did most of his magic show I've no reason to believe that the rest was any different.


also interesting how i have friends who have participated in controlled telepathy studies (as has GS), yet the skeptic response is to look down on these and resort to 'humour'O0

I can't speak for the others, but I resort to humour because I find it so hard to believe that anyone (let alone a science teacher) could be so naive as to be taken in by such nonsense - and humour seems a more acceptable response than a blunt statement of my feelings.


It's all about what you want/don't want to see ;D

On the contrary (as we've repeatedly said and you repeatedly ignored) we would all love to see **evidence** that the spirit world, afterlife etc etc are real.

[tolman]

I am grateful for your interest in this, even if you are trying to disprove something.

May we start afresh?
Sure. The way we were going, we weren't going to get anywhere.

I do understand it can get a bit heavy when multiple people are replying to things you're writing, and possibly seem more hostile than any individual intends.

I'm not sure I'm trying to disprove things so much as play devil's advocate. I do think differently to many people (differently, not necessarily better), and might miss points other will notice, or pick up on things that others miss.

[bindeweede]

How would I react? Well I can tell you how I did react to purported messages from my deceased grandfather. Initially I was extremely puzzled and disturbed, but as I gradually figured how it was done I became more and more impressed by the psychic's outstanding abilities. Not his psychic ability mark you, but rather his skill at cold reading and his understanding of human psychology.

What happened was this. Way back in the 70s I met a young lady at a friend's house. Next day, a Sunday, I turned up at her house hoping to resume the brief relationship but she was getting ready to go to church - apparently it was a very special service and she really wanted to attend. Not to be put off, I said I would go with her - and only then did I discover that her church was Newburn Spiritualist Church and the special service was a visit from some world-renowned psychic.

Despite my desire to hide at the back, we were shown to the front row and when the psychic started he came straight to me and was soon telling me about my grandfather who died two years earlier - his name, his occupation, his religious beliefs etc - and even about what he'd left me in his will. Amazing stuff, and as I said, I was puzzled and disturbed. There was no way he could have researched this stuff in advance because he didn't know I'd be there, the lass I was with didn't know I'd turn up at her door and come with her - nobody could have anticipated my presence in that room. So I was really beginning to think that maybe the guy was for real - what other explanation was there?

But then I went over the experience in detail in my mind as best I could, and, although I'd never heard of cold reading, it was soon clear that he'd very cleverly steared me to provide the information by getting me to confirm or refute his hints or suggestions - explicitly or implicitly, by words or body language - without my even being aware of it. And he did it so smoothly that his many misses barely made an impression while his few hits were unmissible.

There are still one or two things he said which I cannot explain, but I put that down to my imperfect memory of the conversation. Having figured how he did most of his magic show I've no reason to believe that the rest was any different.



I can't speak for the others, but I resort to humour because I find it so hard to believe that anyone (let alone a science teacher) could be so naive as to be taken in by such nonsense - and humour seems a more acceptable response than a blunt statement of my feelings.



On the contrary (as we've repeatedly said and you repeatedly ignored) we would all love to see **evidence** that the spirit world, afterlife etc etc are real.

Brian,

Thank you for that.

[Tin Lizzie]

How would I react? Well I can tell you how I did react to purported messages from my deceased grandfather. Initially I was extremely puzzled and disturbed, but as I gradually figured how it was done I became more and more impressed by the psychic's outstanding abilities. Not his psychic ability mark you, but rather his skill at cold reading and his understanding of human psychology.

What happened was this. Way back in the 70s I met a young lady at a friend's house. Next day, a Sunday, I turned up at her house hoping to resume the brief relationship but she was getting ready to go to church - apparently it was a very special service and she really wanted to attend. Not to be put off, I said I would go with her - and only then did I discover that her church was Newburn Spiritualist Church and the special service was a visit from some world-renowned psychic.

Despite my desire to hide at the back, we were shown to the front row and when the psychic started he came straight to me and was soon telling me about my grandfather who died two years earlier - his name, his occupation, his religious beliefs etc - and even about what he'd left me in his will. Amazing stuff, and as I said, I was puzzled and disturbed. There was no way he could have researched this stuff in advance because he didn't know I'd be there, the lass I was with didn't know I'd turn up at her door and come with her - nobody could have anticipated my presence in that room. So I was really beginning to think that maybe the guy was for real - what other explanation was there?

But then I went over the experience in detail in my mind as best I could, and, although I'd never heard of cold reading, it was soon clear that he'd very cleverly steared me to provide the information by getting me to confirm or refute his hints or suggestions - explicitly or implicitly, by words or body language - without my even being aware of it. And he did it so smoothly that his many misses barely made an impression while his few hits were unmissible.

There are still one or two things he said which I cannot explain, but I put that down to my imperfect memory of the conversation. Having figured how he did most of his magic show I've no reason to believe that the rest was any different.



I can't speak for the others, but I resort to humour because I find it so hard to believe that anyone (let alone a science teacher) could be so naive as to be taken in by such nonsense - and humour seems a more acceptable response than a blunt statement of my feelings.



On the contrary (as we've repeatedly said and you repeatedly ignored) we would all love to see **evidence** that the spirit world, afterlife etc etc are real.

thanks Brian P

i must be honest, and most reasonable-minded 'believers' would say this, that there are obviously far more fakes out there than thera re the real thing. it's a big-bucks business. the ones who aren't in the limelight are the reliable ones, and some of them-believe i or not- don't use hot or cold reading. This is how readings can be done 'at a distance'.

I may sound like a stubborn old mule here, but i acknowledge that genuine mediums in the minority. all i am really trying to do is set the case for the real workers out the, the ones who do have 'the gift'.

Yes i do teach science and i am very good at it. i don't need to be told what to do and how to do it by politicians with an agenda (although sadly i have to meet certain paperwork quotas. last i heard, it was 50 reams of any kind of paperwork per month) ;D
I keep my work firmly separate from my spiritual activities.

My main point is that just because we can't prove something exists doesn't mean it doesn't exist. it's all well and good to speak in the name of scientific reliability and continuity and say 'where is the evidence' but my root point is that scientifically this can not be done. yet. i mean (think i'll probably get stick for this one), how could we ever say for certain that we know the electron exists, if it wasn't for the invention of high-power microscopes? See what i mean?!

Cheers.

[Tin Lizzie]

I hope your 'brief relationship' had a satisfactory outcome >:D

[bindeweede]

One of the many things I do not understand is why people who have died cannot communicate directly with their family. My father died in January. I am not aware of having received a message from him. Why would he go through a third party? Especially one who wants money.

And, why do psychics or whatever, assume people loved their parents.
It gives me no pleasure to say, publicly, here, that my father was not a nice person. He thought he was, and others did too, but I knew. My feelings for him varied from dislike to hate.

Why would I want to get in touch with someone who drove my mother to attempt suicide, and why would he want to get in touch with someone who didn't love him?

Oh Happy days......

[Tin Lizzie]

One of the many things I do not understand is why people who have died cannot communicate directly with their family. My father died in January. I am not aware of having received a message from him. Why would he go through a third party? Especially one who wants money.

And, why do psychics or whatever, assume people loved their parents.
It gives me no pleasure to say, publicly, here, that my father was not a nice person. He thought he was, and others did too, but I knew. My feelings for him varied from dislike to hate.

Why would I want to get in touch with someone who drove my mother to attempt suicide, and why would he want to get in touch with someone who didn't love him?

Oh Happy days......


Forgive me here, i don't intend to do anything other than put what you have just said in the light of this discussion.
I'm going to tread carefully of course, but my understanding of what i believe is that it is very difficult for spirit to 'come down to our level' so to speak - the energy has to come from somewhere of course - and this is why mediums come in handy for them.

[bindeweede]

Forgive me here, i don't intend to do anything other than put what you have just said in the light of this discussion.
I'm going to tread carefully of course, but my understanding of what i believe is that it is very difficult for spirit to 'come down to our level' so to speak - the energy has to come from somewhere of course - and this is why mediums come in handy for them.

Really, you do not need to tread carefully. I think I understand what you are saying about coming down to my/our level, but I have to say, I cannot believe in "spirit".

But I do realise you are not being confrontational. Not the right word, but I have just realised I have not got over it.

[Araneus]

Know being my chosen operative word, as opposed to believe O0

Out of interest, is it just your beliefs that qualify for "know" status, or everybody's?

I believe that the world is materialistic, that there is no afterlife or spirit world, humans do not have souls and there is no such thing as "free will". By your definitions I am qualified to state that I "know" these things.

What happens when two people "know" things which are incompatible with each other?

[Tin Lizzie]

Out of interest, is it just your beliefs that qualify for "know" status, or everybody's?

I believe that the world is materialistic, that there is no afterlife or spirit world, humans do not have souls and there is no such thing as "free will". By your definitions I am qualified to state that I "know" these things.

What happens when two people "know" things which are incompatible with each other?

interesting point, but it serves me no purpose to alter your knowledge. As it stands i have made contact with spirit and vice versa. I know this; it is not a matter of believing it. If you were the only person to see the proverbial tree fall down in the forest, you would know it had fallen, unless you chose to doubt yourself. others would have to believe it had fallen, unless of course anecdotes could be taken as evidence.

[Araneus]

interesting point, but it serves me no purpose to alter your knowledge. As it stands i have made contact with spirit and vice versa. I know this; it is not a matter of believing it.

You are not answering the question.

You have had certain experiences to lead you to believe certain things about the "spirit world" which you consider to be knowledge. Somebody else could have equally vivid personal experience which lead them to believe something else, which they also consider knowledge, but is incompatible with your own experiences.

How could you convince that other person, or anybody else, that your "knowledge" was correct and the other person's was wrong? What is so special about your experiences that means other people should accept them as fact, when everybody else's experiences are just "belief"?

It just looks like arrogance to me: "I'm right, and you're wrong. Now shut up!".

[Tin Lizzie]

It just looks like arrogance to me: "I'm right, and you're wrong. Now shut up!".

Well honestly that is also a matter of your own perception. At no point have i said 'you are wrong' or implied so. On the contrary it is you who is evidently determined to prove me wrong.
I fear a repeat of a previous statement is necessary: I don't seek to change your knowledge; don't seek to change mine.
I refer you again to the 'falling tree' analogy.

[bindeweede]

I know this is OT, but for a teacher, you do seem to get a lot of "non-contact" time. When I was teaching, I'd be lucky to get 2 hours a week "marking and preparation time".

I suppose you might be in the independent sector.

[Tin Lizzie]

I suppose you might be in the independent sector.

Now...you're not psychic are you? ;)

Supply, taking time out until next term. Ahhh bliss!

What were you teaching?

[bindeweede]

Now...you're not psychic are you? ;)

Supply, taking time out until next term. Ahhh bliss!

What were you teaching?

I started out teaching Music, but ended up in an MLD school, where you have to cover several subjects.

[Julia]

I have to agree with Brian that not every dead person is a "loved one". Why do we never hear about dead parents using the services of a medium to blame their kids for wrecking their lives, neglecting them in old age or cadging money off them for years? Do dead children ever lambast their parents for neglecting, ill-treating or sexually abusing them? The only "messages" I'm aware of seem to be on the lines of "so-and-so is happy in his new life, he wants me to tell you that he's still with you, etc..."

[Julia]

"Brian"? I did of course mean "bindeweed".

[Araneus]

Why do we never hear about dead parents using the services of a medium to blame their kids for wrecking their lives, neglecting them in old age or cadging money off them for years? Do dead children ever lambast their parents for neglecting, ill-treating or sexually abusing them?

No, but sometimes they communicate with people using a detuned TV set (which for some reason is installed in a waterlogged derelict warehouse with no electricity supply) and encourage them to kidnap and murder women for no particular purpose.

It's true, I saw it in the movies.

[Tin Lizzie]

I have to agree with Brian that not every dead person is a "loved one". Why do we never hear about dead parents using the services of a medium to blame their kids for wrecking their lives, neglecting them in old age or cadging money off them for years? Do dead children ever lambast their parents for neglecting, ill-treating or sexually abusing them? The only "messages" I'm aware of seem to be on the lines of "so-and-so is happy in his new life, he wants me to tell you that he's still with you, etc..."

Genuine mediums are careful with what they pass on. Besides, the spirit plane is one of love. To communicate with spirit requires this thing probably more than anything, so if a message was to be received in such cases it would no doubt be one of love & forgiveness

[Tin Lizzie]

No, but sometimes they communicate with people using a detuned TV set (which for some reason is installed in a waterlogged derelict warehouse with no electricity supply) and encourage them to kidnap and murder women for no particular purpose.

It's true, I saw it in the movies.

Movies. Hardly 'evidence'.
Oh, were you being sarcastic again? ::)

[Melanie]

Besides, the spirit plane is one of love.


Are you saying there are no bad spirits?

As an aside, I think you would be interested by this book; Hungry Ghosts - Joe Fisher. I believe it is out of print, but Google for it, you'll easily find a copy. I just found this review which saves me writing my own - I read it several years ago and found it intriguing, influential, and disturbing.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/blackchip/hungry_ghosts.htm

[Tin Lizzie]

Are you saying there are no bad spirits?



Of course not. Such spirits can only be 'saved' as such by 'coming back into the light'. I am sure you know more than myself of incidences of this, and how transfiguration may be involved.

[Melanie]

I once attended a demonstration of transfiguration. It involved staring for a long time at a medium whose face was lit only by a red light. The effect was the same as staring at anything for a long time - the image started to blur and change. Try staring at your own face in a mirror for a long time and you'll soon see what I mean. (It can be very scary.) I'm sure there is a neurological reason for this effect. Is this the kind of transfiguration you mean?

[Tin Lizzie]

I once attended a demonstration of transfiguration. It involved staring for a long time at a medium whose face was lit only by a red light. The effect was the same as staring at anything for a long time - the image started to blur and change. Try staring at your own face in a mirror for a long time and you'll soon see what I mean. (It can be very scary.) I'm sure there is a neurological reason for this effect. Is this the kind of transfiguration you mean?

I'm not sure - i meant instances where spirits have been passed to the light and where transfiguration, usually of the medium, is involved. There are some serious and low-key mediums on 'the psychic barber' forum who would definitely respond to your style of questioning, if that interests you?

[Tin Lizzie]

I once attended a demonstration of transfiguration. It involved staring for a long time at a medium whose face was lit only by a red light. The effect was the same as staring at anything for a long time - the image started to blur and change. Try staring at your own face in a mirror for a long time and you'll soon see what I mean. (It can be very scary.) I'm sure there is a neurological reason for this effect. Is this the kind of transfiguration you mean?

I have heard and read of such 'demonstrations' and they are not held in any great regard by genuine mediums. Obviously they can not demand that the spirit adopts this approach, but i do know of a medium who has experienced transfiguration whilst talking to a friend. Obviuosly the friend is a witness.

[chillzero]

Genuine mediums are careful with what they pass on. Besides, the spirit plane is one of love. To communicate with spirit requires this thing probably more than anything, so if a message was to be received in such cases it would no doubt be one of love & forgiveness

Indeed. 'Genuine' mediums, as in those who make a successful career from telling people what they want to hear, definitely are careful about what they say to people.

Although it's called 'cold' reading, the more successful mediums tend to be warmer in character. They need the person to relax and open up to them, and they need to appear to care about the situation. They aren't likely to have a person refer more people to them, or return to them repeatedly, if they tell their clients that their mother hated them and was laughing to see when they broke their arm, for example.

[tolman]

Although it's called 'cold' reading, the more successful mediums tend to be warmer in character. They need the person to relax and open up to them, and they need to appear to care about the situation. They aren't likely to have a person refer more people to them, or return to them repeatedly, if they tell their clients that their mother hated them and was laughing to see when they broke their arm, for example.

I guess there is the double-bluff approach of at least sometimes saying harsh things in the hope people might think "They wouldn't say something like that if they weren't genuine".

[Tin Lizzie]

Indeed. 'Genuine' mediums, as in those who make a successful career from telling people what they want to hear, definitely are careful about what they say to people.


Begging your pardon. The genuine mediums I refer to are those who are actually reluctant to pursue their gift in public. Obviously they are harder to find, but I personally know truly gifted mediums who prefer to work without charging a fee. Really.

What you are saying is of course right and we need look no further than certain pathetic specimens on this forum who are clearly seeking publicity and seem not to appreciate why they should keep sensitive matters, such as the Madeleine case, behind closed doors until they have actually put their (skills?) to some use. These people are the main reason why 'genuine' mediums prefer to stay out of the limelight.

[Tin Lizzie]

I guess there is the double-bluff approach of at least sometimes saying harsh things in the hope people might think "They wouldn't say something like that if they weren't genuine".

I don't know if you've seen Tony Stockwell on the telly. I have only watched one 'episode', concerning a boy who was murdered on wasteland near his home. At first I thought TS seemed to have a real gift, then i noticed how his tone became insistent and his exasperation with the father's disagreement over some things bordered on aggression. Sadly, although i know some wonderful people who really do have a gift in being able to pass messages from spirit, I am now extremely wary of anyone who appears on TV. It is such a shame that the wrong message is being put across - no pun:smiley:

[Admin]

The genuine mediums I refer to are those who are actually reluctant to pursue their gift in public. Obviously they are harder to find, but I personally know truly gifted mediums who prefer to work without charging a fee.

This reminds me. I must write up the fallacy that I named the Argument to Sanctimony!!

Not charging for readings does not make a medium 'genuine'. The idea that they do it to help people and not for self gain is simply feigned piety: they may not charge money but they do it for their own self-serving reasons. Even if it's only to make themselves feel good or special.

[Tin Lizzie]

This reminds me. I must write up the fallacy that I named the Argument to Sanctimony!!

Not charging for readings does not make a medium 'genuine'. The idea that they do it to help people and not for self gain is simply feigned piety: they may not charge money but they do it for their own self-serving reasons. Even if it's only to make themselves feel good or special.

You have a case, but you are again ignoring the possibility that there are people out their with real skills that have real use. To instantly assume they are feigning piety - that's quite insulting. I mean, I could say that everyone who writes anything on here is just attention-seeking, that they are just trying to get applause or congratulation from others, particularly when jumping on the 'bash the believer' bandwagon. Okay this is quite funny at times, but it turns objectivity on its head.