Science can not yet prove Spiritual existence...

[Tin Lizzie]

Well hello to everybody on this site....

I joined because I was following the 'messages from miscarriages debate', which was brought to my attention on Gordon Smith's forum.

I am not a psychic nor am I a medium. I am not a mental case, and I live very much in the real world with my job as a science teacher.

I have, from an early age, had experiences which cannot be explained. I have received messages from deceased friends and family (unfortunately I have attended a lot of funerals in my time) and I have had several encounters which have been sinister and frightening.

I have seen a few ghosts, and I know that these are different to spirits.

Yes, I have heard voices. This saved my life one time when I was involved in a terrorist incident, but sadly it couldn't help me save the hundreds who were killed and the thousands who were mutilated, whilst all I received was a scratch and a mental struggle which would come some time later.

I am here to open myself to discussion and take in new knowledge. I am not here to be called a liar and have my experiences ridiculed just because they cannot be scientifically proven.

If anybody could provide me links on hot and cold reading I would be very grateful, as these are new terms to me.

I look forward to building my knowledge on this site, not having my current knowledge criticised.

Peace to you all:smiley:

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Hi,

You could start with Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading

This might not be most comprehensive analysis, but there are a number of decent links at the bottom of the page. Don't let the fact that some are skeptical sites put you off. >:D

And a smaller article on hot reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_reading

[Tin Lizzie]

Thanks for that...

to me it's all about gaining knowledge, i'm just midful of stepping through a minefield (or is that mindfield?) of bulls***!

cheers

[lara123]

good day tin lizzy!so we're in it together,i am hoping for fair decent healthy debates too but as you know have been made quite unwelcome,so we'll see how we get on.

[Tin Lizzie]

Good morning Lara! :smiley:

*sighs* yes, I really wondered if it was worth bothering with this, but there are some intelligent people here and already I have learned something, so I live in hope!

Peace with you :smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

Thanks for those links Farside, that's helped clarify things. It certainly shows how bogus psychics & mediums may take advantage, but there are still too many accurate and relevant messages coming through. In these cases, I think evidence of hot reading would have to be 'proved', and seeing as this is unlikely to be possible, it comes down to what you would rather believe.

:smiley:

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Thanks for those links Farside, that's helped clarify things. It certainly shows how bogus psychics & mediums may take advantage, but there are still too many accurate and relevant messages coming through. In these cases, I think evidence of hot reading would have to be 'proved', and seeing as this is unlikely to be possible, it comes down to what you would rather believe.

:smiley:

But that's the point though -all those accurate and relevant messages are just the results of mainly cold reading. As a technique, hot reading is not used as extensively to be honest.

The person being read tends to help provide the information that makes the reading seem so authentic. Plus the misses are forgotten and the hits are remembered. There is a lot more to this than just a few tricks or techniques, it involves an awful lot of human psychology.

What seems like a convincing reading often disintegrates when a full transcript is available. You see that the reader has mostly asked questions, used vague statements or used information privided to them by the subject.

Ultimately it doesn't come down to what you want to believe. If you believe that there is something paranormal going on, you aren't taking account of all the facts.

[Dr B]

I hope you both enjoying debating here. We only learn when we are truly challenged O0

One thing to keep in mind is that here - we propose or comment on arguments - not people. If we disagree with you - its not personal - its the argument you might be offering that we may question.

Of course, it works in the other direction as well. The only debate around here that has truly descended into chaos is one where a certain individual has been caught out editing her posts and lying. I am sure you can both appreciate why that is not helpful to any debate - irrespective of what you believe.

Have fun....and welcome to the forum O0 I am genuinely pleased to see people here that hold different views.

[Tin Lizzie]

why thanks Dr.B, er.....woofinder ;D

peace be with you all & may your work produce some good!

[Dr B]

Tin Lizzie

You are most welcome!

I am very interested in your chosen title for this thread - could you explain it a little more?

[Tin Lizzie]

Most Certainly Dr.B, thanks for addressing it.

I am referring to the fact that the approach here seems to be oriented towards uncovering bogus psychics and mediums (a worthy cause) and extending further towards disproving the existence of the afterlife (also a fair cause), to which ends the 'truth' has yet to be 'proven'. I am aware that some paranormal psychologists are actually geared towards proving the existence of the spirit world, and as far as I know the school of psychical research is active in this.
My point is that whatever can be said about scientific progress, and there is no doubt that scientific method is the most reliable means of explaining something in concrete terms, it is worth bearing in mind that even though advancements have come in huge leaps and bounds in the last few hundred years or so there are still areas (e.g. quantum physics, the exploration of the brain, the afterlife) where we are unable to ascertain 'the truth'.

In a nutshell, life came before science. Science is a human endeavour, and how can we possibly say that us humans have reached the peak of our abilities? It is a dream (will probably remain so) of mine that one day someone will be able to demonstrate scientifcally what many of us know already.

[Julia]

It isn't the job of science to "prove" spiritual existence. For thousands of years metaphysical specialists - priests, oracles, mediums etc. - have had ample opportunity to come up with evidence that their beliefs are based on more than wishful thinking and a desire to exercise power over the credulous. They have failed miserably, as have the small but significant number of scientists who have entered the fray, usually by throwing their professional and ethical standards out of the window in an attempt to convince themselves that "there must be something in it".

You say that "there are still areas (e.g. quantum physics, the exporation of the brain, the afterlife) where we are still unable to ascertain 'the truth'. Quantum physics is a recognised branch of science, the brain obviously exists - but what is the afterlife doing in this company? There is no more evidence for its existence than there is for that of unicorns.

It's been over 120 years since the Society for Psychical Research was founded by people who desperately WANTED to find evidence that death wasn't the final curtain. What progress has been made since then? Seances still take place in darkened rooms, mediums still convey inane messages from the dead, we're still waiting for worthwhile photographic or video evidence of ghosts. Could this be because THERE IS NOTHING TO FIND?

[Araneus]

good day tin lizzy!so we're in it together,i am hoping for fair decent healthy debates too but as you know have been made quite unwelcome,

No (s)he hasn't. (S)he has made a number of claims which have been challenged, a number of requests for information which have been met, and a few personal attacks which have been dismissed for what they are (with an accompanying explanation).

Unfortunately some believers are incapable of distinguishing between criticism of their beliefs and criticism of their person, this is however their problem and nobody else's.

[Tin Lizzie]

well julia you have also jumped to 'the most likely conclusion'

as for the 'job' of science....please do tell me exactly what that one is (with references and citations please)

There is plenty of evidence out there in support of the spirit world. If you can not disprove its existence without calling those of us who have witnessed things with our own eyes and ears liars, then quite frankly why should I pay attention to what amounts to little more than your 'educated' opinion?

[Tin Lizzie]

No (s)he hasn't. (S)he has made a number of claims which have been challenged, a number of requests for information which have been met, and a few personal attacks which have been dismissed for what they are (with an accompanying explanation).

Unfortunately some believers are incapable of distinguishing between criticism of their beliefs and criticism of their person, this is however their problem and nobody else's.

It's the male version, thanks. Personal attacks...more info please, or is it just that humour is only chosen selectively on this site?

I have no problem with people believing whatever they want & I have no desire to force my knowledge on others. I am just grateful that i can say these things without being carted off and burnt at the stake, as I would have done not too long ago.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

It's the male version, thanks. Personal attacks...more info please, or is it just that humour is only chosen selectively on this site?

I have no problem with people believing whatever they want & I have no desire to force my knowledge on others. I am just grateful that i can say these things without being carted off and burnt at the stake, as I would have done not too long ago.

At what point do you think we said we aren't going to burn you? >:D

[Dr B]

Tin Lizzie

Thanks for responding - now i see the type of thing you mean. As Julia noted however, it is not the job of science to disprove the paranormal. This is a common misconception.

Can I recommend to you some literature from our main website. Check out the documents on critical thinking and the one on seven fallacies of reason.

I hope that will cover a good deal of this for you - at least as a starting point. From that - you should be able to appreciate what Julia pointed out - which is a point I would have made myself as well.

Come back here with outstanding questions from your reading or feel free to start a new thread on it.

Happy reading O0

PS - here read this - http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=Seven_fallacies_of_thought_and_reason.php

and try this

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/documents/Critical_Thinkingv51.pdf

[Tin Lizzie]

Thanks guys :smiley:

i'll get back to you once i've had a little peruse...in the meantime here's one for you lot, as recommended by a friend on that other website!

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2162

Just to give an illustration of how some things shouldn't be frowned upon just because we don't understand them

hang on....was that somebody striking a match?!? :-X:-X:-X

[Dr B]

That's a classic example of other forms of fallacious reasoning.

That man's expertise in one field does not translate to another necessarily. An appeal to authority perhaps? Or even "an appeal to past glory as verification of future correctness on unrelated ideas" ::)

Does it not strike you as more than interesting that his ideas are theoretical in nature and not practically demonstrated in any way?

[Mongrel]

I think the article would have more impact if the the examples he picked (that I read - -I'm meant to be working ;)) weren't so thoroughly debunked already, a couple of examples;


I went to a conference where the French immunologist Jacques Benveniste was talking for the first time about his discovery that water has a "memory" of compounds that were once dissolved in it - which might explain how homeopathy works. His findings provoked irrationally strong reactions from scientists and I was struck by how badly he was treated. To an extent, I realised that the way science is done by consensus could get things completely wrong. I feel that it's important to try and correct the errors that scientists are making.


The experiment couldn't be replicated successfully and was withdrawn by Nature magazine, more info here (http://www.randi.org/jr/090503.html)



You draw the line in a very different place to most scientists when it comes to hard-to-prove phenomena such as telepathy and cold fusion.

Can I take you up on something? These things are not hard to prove, they're just hard to get accepted.

If these are prime examples of 'not hard to prove' then we would have properly conducted trials coming out of our ears. Instead we have a multiplicity of theories, many invoking 'Quantum', and petulant whinings that the information is being supressed and it's all a big conspiracy. If that were the case Einstein would never have been published, we'd probably still be treating stomach ulcers with long courses of antacids and 'lay off the curries' if Barry Marshall hadn't drunk the test tube and whilst it took over 40 years Alfred Wegeners theory of continental drift gained acceptance as evidence was gathered in support of his theory. Scientists don't get worldwide recognition in their field for adding another 10 digits to Pi, they get it for major advances and overturning existing theories with large amounts of better data.

Spiritual existence has had far too long to come up with any meaningful, replicable data and hasn't. It relies heavily on anecdotes and very minor data points strung together with wishful thinking and pixie dust

[Tin Lizzie]

That's a classic example of other forms of fallacious reasoning.

That man's expertise in one field does not translate to another necessarily. An appeal to authority perhaps? Or even "an appeal to past glory as verification of future correctness on unrelated ideas" ::)

Does it not strike you as more than interesting that his ideas are theoretical in nature and not practically demonstrated in any way?

::) so that means they can be debunked as utter bunkum? talk about reasoning...:cheesy:

[Dr B]

You misunderstand

If you go back and read the link you provided the implicit suggestion is that this guy must be talking sense about survival because he has a PhD and a Nobel prize in another subject.

This is completely meaningless in the context of this new debate he is trying to make. I was highlighting that some people use expertise in one area to make a case for something different. It's an important point.

Of course it does not make it false; I said the theory does not work on a neuroscientific level - that makes it false. Please try to stick to what was written - that is the best way to have a debate around here. O0 Otherwise you just end up arguing at your own confusion.

[Tin Lizzie]

I think the article would have more impact if the the examples he picked (that I read - -I'm meant to be working ;)) weren't so thoroughly debunked already, a couple of examples;



The experiment couldn't be replicated successfully and was withdrawn by Nature magazine, more info here (http://www.randi.org/jr/090503.html)



If these are prime examples of 'not hard to prove' then we would have properly conducted trials coming out of our ears. Instead we have a multiplicity of theories, many invoking 'Quantum', and petulant whinings that the information is being supressed and it's all a big conspiracy. If that were the case Einstein would never have been published, we'd probably still be treating stomach ulcers with long courses of antacids and 'lay off the curries' if Barry Marshall hadn't drunk the test tube and whilst it took over 40 years Alfred Wegeners theory of continental drift gained acceptance as evidence was gathered in support of his theory. Scientists don't get worldwide recognition in their field for adding another 10 digits to Pi, they get it for major advances and overturning existing theories with large amounts of better data.

Spiritual existence has had far too long to come up with any meaningful, replicable data and hasn't. It relies heavily on anecdotes and very minor data points strung together with wishful thinking and pixie dust

hmm interesting about the homeopathy. hopefully his work on cold fusion and 'water memory', which is far more in line with his scientific qualifications, will bear better fruit.

[Tin Lizzie]

Tin Lizzie

Thanks for responding - now i see the type of thing you mean. As Julia noted however, it is not the job of science to disprove the paranormal. This is a common misconception.

Can I recommend to you some literature from our main website. Check out the documents on critical thinking and the one on seven fallacies of reason.

I hope that will cover a good deal of this for you - at least as a starting point. From that - you should be able to appreciate what Julia pointed out - which is a point I would have made myself as well.


Come back here with outstanding questions from your reading or feel free to start a new thread on it.

Happy reading O0

PS - here read this - http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=Seven_fallacies_of_thought_and_reason.php

and try this

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/documents/Critical_Thinkingv51.pdf

very apt, bravo!

well points 2,3 and 4 do make a good case for the uses of science, however the weakness of 'choosing the most likely theory' means that, even given the failure of psychic/mediums to produce results under controlled conditions, we still have no absolute proof/disproof.
may i point to the overhauling of galilean theory by newtonian physics, which in turn disappeared into the proverbial black hole following einstein's work, which is in turn severely undermined by the conveniently-often-ignored confession by old albert himself that he feared 'he may have got it all wrong'.
one day, the truth will come out. but then it will be found out not to be true at all. but then it won't really matter because at that point we'll be long dead and our future incarnations will likely have no recollection of the kind of debates raging today.

In this world of technology - fibre optics, particle accelerators, space travel and nuclear power - the most reliable tools of observation are still the human senses, and some are more developed than others O0

[Admin]

Anyone who is interested in learning about Cold Reading can do no better to buy this book by Ian Rowland: The Full Facts of Cold Reading (http://www.ianrowland.com/ItemsToBuy/ColdReading/ColdReadingMain1.html)

It costs around the price of one psychic reading and will give a truly eye-opening insight into how readings of all flavours work (they're basically all the same thing).

Read this book, understand the concepts, and then watch psychics in action - I guarantee that you'll see these techniques being used by them all.

I'm not saying that psychics have bought the book and learned the techniques from it but that they have 'developed' to use these techniques by trial and error.

It's not the cheapest of books but it is by far the best available on the subject and if anyone really want to understand Cold Reading, it's money well spent. O0

[Admin]

given the failure of psychic/mediums to produce results under controlled conditions, we still have no absolute proof/disproof.

In science, we'd conclude that there's no need to reject the null hypothesis so we stick with the position that this ability is false until or unless evidence comes to light to indicate otherwise.

Popper and all that! ;)


may i point to the overhauling of galilean theory by newtonian physics, which in turn disappeared into the proverbial black hole following einstein's work, which is in turn severely undermined by the conveniently-often-ignored confession by old albert himself that he feared 'he may have got it all wrong'.
one day, the truth will come out.

That's just saying that science has been wrong before (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=science_has_been_wrong_before.php). That doesn't mean that any current claim that is also wrong is likely to be proved right.


In this world of technology - fibre optics, particle accelerators, space travel and nuclear power - the most reliable tools of observation are still the human senses, and some are more developed than others O0

Human senses and human perception are notoriously unreliable (!)

I think one of the main reasons people believe in many things that are just not true is because they believe in the infallibility of their senses and perception. If they've seen it with their own eyes or experienced it themselves then it must be true.

Over the years of debating issues I find that stating to someone that homeopathy doesn't work (theoretically and in practice), for example, someone will reply, "have you tried it for yourself?"

This is really an Appeal to Flattery in that the overriding assumption is that even if all of science says it doesn't work, I can know better.

Of course if something that isn't real 'works for me' all it really means is that I am mistaken. There are lots of confounding factors that can make things appear real when they're not.

Relying on human perception and experience is a recipe for reaching false conclusions. This is why the scientific method was developed.

[Shirley]

I have come to the conclusion that everything psychics come up with is either guessed, faked or just plain luck or lack of it. I tried cold reading myself and NLP and heaven knows what else and if you work it you can fool people, and vulnerable people are easily fooled. Those too who are emotionally dependent, or challenged mentally or have lower IQs or are just too trusting or are desperately seeking comfort in some form or other - yes they are so easily fooled. That is why I won't make great claims or let my ego get involved when it comes to that sort of thing. I KNOW it's a trick, the whole lot of it...

There I stop because... part of me wants to believe.. part of me wants to see it happen and be proven wrong.

[fruitfly]

Yes, I have heard voices. This saved my life one time when I was involved in a terrorist incident, but sadly it couldn't help me save the hundreds who were killed and the thousands who were mutilated, whilst all I received was a scratch and a mental struggle which would come some time later.


Would you be willing to expound on this?

[Tin Lizzie]

Popper and all that! ;)

That's just saying that science has been wrong before (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=science_has_been_wrong_before.php). That doesn't mean that any current claim that is also wrong is likely to be proved right.

Relying on human perception and experience is a recipe for reaching false conclusions. This is why the scientific method was developed.

Well well!

obviously i've cut out bits of your message, but the interested researcher can of course refer to the original above - no fraud intended. Well, my little bit about galileo et al. wasn't implying anything other than we need to keep an open mind - and not assume anything.

I actually feel like giving up on this totally - science and the afterlife are competely incompatible at this stage, like two siblings living in different rooms in the same house but never talking to eachother.

scientific method was indeed developed to allow progress beyond what we can see and to establish reproducibility. The only tools I need to connect with the world around me, the seen and the unseen, are my own senses (of course the 'net helps too) ::)

[Tin Lizzie]

Would you be willing to expound on this?

Indeed I would, but it is not something to be discussed and dissected in scientific terms.

[Tin Lizzie]

I have come to the conclusion that everything psychics come up with is either guessed, faked or just plain luck or lack of it. I tried cold reading myself and NLP and heaven knows what else and if you work it you can fool people, and vulnerable people are easily fooled. Those too who are emotionally dependent, or challenged mentally or have lower IQs or are just too trusting or are desperately seeking comfort in some form or other - yes they are so easily fooled. That is why I won't make great claims or let my ego get involved when it comes to that sort of thing. I KNOW it's a trick, the whole lot of it...

There I stop because... part of me wants to believe.. part of me wants to see it happen and be proven wrong.

you're right to be sceptical in this sense, but give yourself a pat on the back for still keeping that little but of you open.

i have had a totally duff reading myself - i realised when i played the tape back that everything was general, it could actually be applied to many things.

then i was put in touch with an australian psychic, who totally embarrassed me, yet pleased me at the same time, by telling me all about the girl i had a crush on at the time, even though i had gone to talk about other things - she said she had brown hair, i said no, she's blonde....a few weeks later i found out she was a natural brunette. all i'll say is have a look on Gordon Smith's forum & chat with some people there, they may be able to point you in the right direction come the time - if it happens- that you may want to have your own psychic / medium sitting.

[bindeweede]

Indeed I would, but it is not something to be discussed and dissected in scientific terms.

So non-scientific terms, then........

[Tin Lizzie]

what exactly would you like to know?

[bindeweede]

what exactly would you like to know?


Yes, I have heard voices. This saved my life one time when I was involved in a terrorist incident, but sadly it couldn't help me save the hundreds who were killed and the thousands who were mutilated, whilst all I received was a scratch and a mental struggle which would come some time later.

[Admin]

I actually feel like giving up on this totally - science and the afterlife are competely incompatible at this stage

What do you think about this as an idea?

A test to prove the afterlife (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=the_afterlife_a_possible_test.php)

Talking about it and doing tests that require interpretation at some stage will never prove things one way or another.

For me, a test like the one above would.

[Shirley]

you're right to be sceptical in this sense, but give yourself a pat on the back for still keeping that little but of you open.

i have had a totally duff reading myself - i realised when i played the tape back that everything was general, it could actually be applied to many things.

then i was put in touch with an australian psychic, who totally embarrassed me, yet pleased me at the same time, by telling me all about the girl i had a crush on at the time, even though i had gone to talk about other things - she said she had brown hair, i said no, she's blonde....a few weeks later i found out she was a natural brunette. all i'll say is have a look on Gordon Smith's forum & chat with some people there, they may be able to point you in the right direction come the time - if it happens- that you may want to have your own psychic / medium sitting.

Thanks for that Tin Lizzie. All I can say is I used to dabble in this field - I say dabble .. ok it was a bit more than that I was a practising Rosicrucian. I can't tell you the number of times I've been right or fooled people with stuff... I never asked for money or advertised as a psychic or made a big thing of it,just that a lot of things were more or less right.. at least correct enough to make people think I was right. Thing is - knowing how it's done takes away the mystery. I do happen to think it's fundamentally wrong to try to prove I'm a psychic or brag about how many times right I've been cos.. whats the point? All I'm doing is plumping up my own ego if I do that... it feels bad, and wrong. It is very VERY annoying when psychics tell you all the times they were right about stuff and you get the feeling thats all they were ever bothered about - that they were right, not about the situation itself. I went to see a psychic called Shaun Booth www.psychicsuk.com (http://www.psychicsuk.com) and his reading was very general and what he knew about m already.

[Melanie]

I'd suggest you research the SPR's 'cross-correspondence' cases - I'm sure you'll find them very interesting. This experiment involved a promise by F.W.Myers, a founder of the SPR, that if survival were fact, he would communicate after death.

The evidence that he did so comprises messages given to several mediums around the world, none of which made any sense - until a researcher at the SPR compared them and realised they were all saying the same thing, in different ways, often using anagrams.

You can find information about them by simply googling, or by consulting the SPR (Society For Psychical Research). For starters, here are two articles by Rosalind Heywood, discussing the case.

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/heywood/cross1.htm

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/heywood/cross2.htm


Here's a further discussion, by Sir Oliver Lodge FRS, another founder member of the SPR.

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/books/lodge/survival/chapter24.htm

And at the bottom of that page are further links to more articles.

You see, none of this is new - these studies were done almost a century ago, and they were done by 'real' scientists. They remain IMO the best examples of how to do this kind of experiment properly.

It's precisely this kind of evidence that propelled me into 15 years of study of mediums and mediumship. It's a far cry from the superficiality of TV mediums and online psychics. This is real research, bearing real fruit.

All the mediums mentioned were scrupulously investigated by the SPR, and many books about them are available.

The question remains - why did this excellent evidence not convince the rest of the world that life after death is a reality?

Cue Dr B...

[Tin Lizzie]

What do you think about this as an idea?

A test to prove the afterlife (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=the_afterlife_a_possible_test.php)

Talking about it and doing tests that require interpretation at some stage will never prove things one way or another.

For me, a test like the one above would.


now you're not being a self-publicist here are you? :tongue:

seriuosly, i agree that what you have there sounds (i am far from qualified may i say) to me a...er, sound method of obtaining proof. As I have said before though, i really don't need proof but i'll put that to the side, in the name of science..

I just think that in the light of many incidences (Gordon Smith is probably the most obvious person to refer to here, given the wide availability of his books) where mediums have delivered precise messages, in both private and group sittings, that have significance to only the person receiving the reading and the spirit delivering the message via the medium, scientific proof is needed only to satisfy the scientific community. a quick example (forgive me, but from Gordon Smith's book 'the unbelievable truth') being the sceptical man whose sceptical wife had passed away; the husband told her, through the medium, precisely where to find the cufflinks he was looking for and where a particular shirt could be found in a certain set of drawers.

Still...has your test being carried out? and i don't suppose you know anything of the telepathy tests carried out on servicemen returning from Afghanistan?

thanks for your response. i'm afraid i can't be objective on this matter though!

[Tin Lizzie]

I'd suggest you research the SPR's 'cross-correspondence' cases - I'm sure you'll find them very interesting. This experiment involved a promise by F.W.Myers, a founder of the SPR, that if survival were fact, he would communicate after death.

The evidence that he did so comprises messages given to several mediums around the world, none of which made any sense - until a researcher at the SPR compared them and realised they were all saying the same thing, in different ways, often using anagrams.

You can find information about them by simply googling, or by consulting the SPR (Society For Psychical Research). For starters, here are two articles by Rosalind Heywood, discussing the case.

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/heywood/cross1.htm

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/heywood/cross2.htm


Here's a further discussion, by Sir Oliver Lodge FRS, another founder member of the SPR.

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/books/lodge/survival/chapter24.htm

And at the bottom of that page are further links to more articles.

You see, none of this is new - these studies were done almost a century ago, and they were done by 'real' scientists. They remain IMO the best examples of how to do this kind of experiment properly.

It's precisely this kind of evidence that propelled me into 15 years of study of mediums and mediumship. It's a far cry from the superficiality of TV mediums and online psychics. This is real research, bearing real fruit.

All the mediums mentioned were scrupulously investigated by the SPR, and many books about them are available.

The question remains - why did this excellent evidence not convince the rest of the world that life after death is a reality?

Cue Dr B...

thankyou so much...i have only looked at these briefly, but I will take the time to read them completely.
perhaps the answer to your last question lies in fear of the afterlife or a fear of being shown to be wrong? either way, this is encouraging. again, thankyou.

[Admin]

perhaps the answer to your last question lies in fear of the afterlife or a fear of being shown to be wrong? either way, this is encouraging. again, thankyou.

When faced with an afterlife or oblivion, I'd choose the afterlife every time. I can't see why anyone would have fear of an afterlife.



Thanks for those links Mel. O0

[Tin Lizzie]

i must confess...the spirit world has brought me much happiness, but being woken by a 'visitor' just as i am going to sleep and having my head pressed against the wall whilst some dark shape stands inches away from me....that wasn't very pleasant!

[fruitfly]

When faced with an afterlife or oblivion, I'd choose the afterlife every time. I can't see why anyone would have fear of an afterlife.

I agree. I think the fear of oblivion is the big reason why people believe in the afterlife.

[fruitfly]

Would you be willing to expound on this?


Indeed I would, but it is not something to be discussed and dissected in scientific terms.

I think that would probably be unavoidable as you mentioned it in the OP of a thread entitled "Science can not yet prove Spiritual existence..." Kind of invites a discussion of spirituality in relation to science. Also, as this is a sceptic forum, any claims made for supernatural experiences are bound to be discussed not only in scientific terms, but also in logical and moral terms. It is any poster's prerogative to argue the case for spirituality or any other belief he or she may have, but to set boundaries is to stifle debate.

[Tin Lizzie]

I think that would probably be unavoidable as you mentioned it in the OP of a thread entitled "Science can not yet prove Spiritual existence..." Kind of invites a discussion of spirituality in relation to science. Also, as this is a sceptic forum, any claims made for supernatural experiences are bound to be discussed not only in scientific terms, but also in logical and moral terms. It is any poster's prerogative to argue the case for spirituality or any other belief he or she may have, but to set boundaries is to stifle debate.

ahh fair do's.

right i'll put it my way, you reply yours.

firstly, i'll take you back to when i was about 8 years old; my mum and I were in the shopping centre in town and heading back to the bus stop. As we were walking, my mum a few yards ahead of me, I was drawn to look to my left, where there was a small dead-end alley, filled with dustbins and rubbish, and from where the fire exit to a major up-market store led out.

Suddenly I heard a clear, audible voice, all it said was 'bomb scare'. It was a male voice, almost expressionless and kind of 'matter-of-fact, that's how it is' in its tone. It had come from a source almost right next to me. I was terrified; my mum was walking on ahead of me totally unconcerned and the only other person nearby was an old lady walking the other way.

Then a strange thing happened. Don't ask me how I can remember this, I just can (I can remember things that happened when I was 2 years old). There was a gusty wind, and I had a sensation that there were 'people' in the air all around watching me. I was terrified. (i had a normal, trauma-free childhood btw)

We waited at the bus stop. The bus was late. We waited nearly 40 minutes. Then a lady approached from the way we had come and advised us to go to another bus stop around the corner, as the road further down had just been closed because of a bomb scare.

Now, the nasty one...I had been buying some pain-killers in a chemist, (in the country where this took place, east africa)when very suddenly I was overwhelmed with a feeling of love and wonder, of love for the goodness that people are capable of (the guy was only giving me painkillers!). A few minutes later, when I was outside, I heard sounds (i recognised the sound of a hand-grenade and automatic gunfire) and saw a commotion. A little voice - different this time, and I think it may have been my own- told me to get myself and my friends moving, out of the main road and down a pedestrian area next to a tall building. This we did, and that is why I am still here today.

i say that voice may have been my own, but it still sounded as though someone was talking. i heard it, i didn't think it (i was too busy wondering what the hell was happening).

so...there.

peace.:smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

When faced with an afterlife or oblivion, I'd choose the afterlife every time. I can't see why anyone would have fear of an afterlife.


must be the other option then, that people are afraid of being shown to be wrong.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

then i was put in touch with an australian psychic, who totally embarrassed me, yet pleased me at the same time, by telling me all about the girl i had a crush on at the time, even though i had gone to talk about other things - she said she had brown hair, i said no, she's blonde....a few weeks later i found out she was a natural brunette.

TL,

This isn't a very important point, but let me make it anyway: you may have been too generous to the psychic. First, brown is a very common colouring for women who don't dye their hair, so it's an easy guess. Second, you seem to be rating the psychic right not only for apparent brunettes but also for real brunettes who dye their hair blonde, as brunettes often do.

Let me add, in case you think I'm just being sour, that I sincerely hope you discovered her natural hair colour in a way that pleased you both. :-)

[Tin Lizzie]

TL,

This isn't a very important point, but let me make it anyway: you may have been too generous to the psychic. First, brown is a very common colouring for women who don't dye their hair, so it's an easy guess. Second, you seem to be rating the psychic right not only for apparent brunettes but also for real brunettes who dye their hair blonde, as brunettes often do.

Let me add, in case you think I'm just being sour, that I sincerely hope you discovered her natural hair colour in a way that pleased you both. :-)

ahh i was waiting for that one! O0

sadly not though, she was attached at the time (er, as in in a relationship, not as in anything to do with hair...erm...). the psychic told me this too (i already knew), at which point i decided to abandon all hope and start behaving :-\

i see your point, but she was very firm on the matter, without being aggressive

[Lord Muck oGentry]

the psychic told me this too (i already knew)


i see your point, but she was very firm on the matter, without being aggressive


TL,

What the psychic told you would have been more impressive if you had not known it yourself. How can you tell there was no cold or hot reading?

As to the other point: are you sure that what you say about the psychic's manner ( firm but not aggressive ) answers my suggestion? The suggestion is that she had a fairly easy guess, perhaps made easier by your generous interpretation.

Regards

LMoG

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

firstly, i'll take you back to when i was about 8 years old; my mum and I were in the shopping centre in town and heading back to the bus stop. As we were walking, my mum a few yards ahead of me, I was drawn to look to my left, where there was a small dead-end alley, filled with dustbins and rubbish, and from where the fire exit to a major up-market store led out.

Suddenly I heard a clear, audible voice, all it said was 'bomb scare'. It was a male voice, almost expressionless and kind of 'matter-of-fact, that's how it is' in its tone. It had come from a source almost right next to me. I was terrified; my mum was walking on ahead of me totally unconcerned and the only other person nearby was an old lady walking the other way.

Then a strange thing happened. Don't ask me how I can remember this, I just can (I can remember things that happened when I was 2 years old). There was a gusty wind, and I had a sensation that there were 'people' in the air all around watching me. I was terrified. (i had a normal, trauma-free childhood btw)



You didn't grow up in N Ireland did you?

[Tin Lizzie]

lol no!

north-east england

[Tin Lizzie]

Re: muckogentry's last

maybe so, but this was at the start of the reading & i felt she was kind of proving herself to me
maybe if i had been aware of hot and cold reading i would have looked out for it, but i certainly did not give anything away, in fact i made sure I said as little as possible.

have to say though i would not trust a psychic now unless they had been recommended by a reliable friend

what about anyone else...duff readings, good ones?

[Melanie]

In the early 80’s I was intrigued by a medium, name of Joan. She would advise prospective sitters to think of a question they wanted answered during their sitting, keep it to themselves, obviously, and then every time they remembered they had booked that sitting, ‘send out a thought’ about that question. Then see if the question was answered during the reading.

One evening my husband was bemoaning the fact that I rarely baked, and said he really missed his grandmother Lizzie’s Yorkshire puddings, because they were so crispy on the outside and really well-risen, and fluffy in the middle. However, Lizzie had died years ago.

‘Never mind,’ I joked, ‘next time I see Joan, I’ll ask her for the recipe!’

Later, I thought that this might actually be a very good test, as it was such a ridiculous question to ask. I booked a sitting with Joan and did as she suggested – every time I remembered the appointment, I mentally asked Lizzie to tell me how she got her Yorkshires so light and fluffy.

The sitting duly arrived, and my notes show a vague reference to Yorkshire puddings, which is odd in itself, but it wasn’t as ‘evidential’ as I had hoped.

However…

A few months later, I had a reading from another medium, Val.
By this time I had forgotten about my Yorkshire Pudding question, having decided it had been a failed experiment. Imagine my surprise, then, when Val said;

"There’s a lady here, and she’s saying that she knows you, but you don’t know her. And she’s saying that someone is going to make a Yorkshire Pudding that will rise. She’s showing me a bowl with flour in, and she’s lifting the flour with her fingers and getting plenty of air into it before anything else goes into the bowl."

Omigod! Lizzie (who I had never met, of course) was giving me cooking tips on request! Well, how else was I supposed to interpret it?

In addition, Val then gave me several thumbnail sketches of people, telling me to ‘Ask your Mum, she will remember them’. None of these ‘sketches’ made any sense at all to my own mother – because I did ask. However, weeks afterwards, it occurred to me to ask my husband’s Mum, Dot – Lizzie’s daughter – and to my surprise, she recognised all of them. Yes, some were pretty vague; ‘Jack who died of a liver disease’ did match an uncle of hers, but ‘someone she grew up with who went off to be a nun’ I would have thought a little more unlikely. However, Dot did grow up with a cousin, who did join a nunnery in her late teens. There were more.

Another ‘ask your Mum’ comment was a mention of someone who came to the house after ‘this lady’ (Lizzie) had died, and put a single red rose on the coffin’. Dot said Yes – that was one of Lizzie’s sons, the proverbial black sheep, who had been ostracised by the family and hadn’t been near the house in years. When he turned up, the family at first wouldn’t let him in, but when they did, he did indeed lay a single red rose on his mother’s coffin.

There were other, similar, sketches, all of whom my mother-in-law Dot recognised.

Before you start, I do know that this is 'purely anecdotal' and does not count as any kind of 'scientific' evidence. But this is the kind of evidence that can convince people they have been communicating with their deceased relatives.

The two mediums were aware of each other's existence at this point, but neither of them was aware I had asked the YP question. I never mentioned it to anyone. It was the first time I had visited the second medium.

The second reading was taped and I transcribed it word for word.

[Shirley]

ahh fair do's.

right i'll put it my way, you reply yours.

firstly, i'll take you back to when i was about 8 years old; my mum and I were in the shopping centre in town and heading back to the bus stop. As we were walking, my mum a few yards ahead of me, I was drawn to look to my left, where there was a small dead-end alley, filled with dustbins and rubbish, and from where the fire exit to a major up-market store led out.

Suddenly I heard a clear, audible voice, all it said was 'bomb scare'. It was a male voice, almost expressionless and kind of 'matter-of-fact, that's how it is' in its tone. It had come from a source almost right next to me. I was terrified; my mum was walking on ahead of me totally unconcerned and the only other person nearby was an old lady walking the other way.

Then a strange thing happened. Don't ask me how I can remember this, I just can (I can remember things that happened when I was 2 years old). There was a gusty wind, and I had a sensation that there were 'people' in the air all around watching me. I was terrified. (i had a normal, trauma-free childhood btw)

We waited at the bus stop. The bus was late. We waited nearly 40 minutes. Then a lady approached from the way we had come and advised us to go to another bus stop around the corner, as the road further down had just been closed because of a bomb scare.

Now, the nasty one...I had been buying some pain-killers in a chemist, (in the country where this took place, east africa)when very suddenly I was overwhelmed with a feeling of love and wonder, of love for the goodness that people are capable of (the guy was only giving me painkillers!). A few minutes later, when I was outside, I heard sounds (i recognised the sound of a hand-grenade and automatic gunfire) and saw a commotion. A little voice - different this time, and I think it may have been my own- told me to get myself and my friends moving, out of the main road and down a pedestrian area next to a tall building. This we did, and that is why I am still here today.

i say that voice may have been my own, but it still sounded as though someone was talking. i heard it, i didn't think it (i was too busy wondering what the hell was happening).

so...there.

peace.:smiley:


That's a really beautiful story with a good outcome in both cases. See I don't doubt that it happened - I believe you and agree that it did but what we most probably don't agree on is the cause of this phenomenon. I don't think it's something to do with guardian angels or spirits but perhaps an aspect of human awareness that science has not yet explored. Till it does find an explanation this remains unexplainable. However if/when science does come up with the cause for this, then it won't be paranormal. You see if science can prove something then it's not paranormal but science can't prove something IS paranormal if that makes any sense.

[Admin]

Don't ask me how I can remember this, I just can (I can remember things that happened when I was 2 years old).

Memories are not reliable recordings of events - they are malleable, can be changed, distorted and even implanted. ???

I think it highly unlikely that a memory from 2 years of age is a genuine one. Often we hear stories of events from other family members and these stories 'create' the memories. They're known as 'family memories'. I have a memory from when I was 10 months old. There's no way it can be a genuine memory and even though I know that I can still replay it vividly in my mind. It's not possible (AFAIK) to tell the difference between a false memory and a genuine one.

When we recall events, our memories are reconstructed and if an event has been embellished in some way or post-event information comes to light concerning the event then our memories can alter and assimilate these new details so we (mis)remember them as having been remembered as part of the event.

So there's no question that people who have pre-cognitive experiences (particularly with recalling pre-cognitive dreams) are genuine, but their memory (although completely vivid) may not be accurate.

Further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory


It's something to be aware of, at least.

[Tin Lizzie]

er...:-\..hang on....:cheesy:

i get what you mean, and thanks for your comment!

well seeing as life, science and the spirit world all share the same space, it is my hope that one day we will be able to explain these things scientifically. to me that does not mean the existence of the spirit world will then have been shown to be a myth.

i mean, just because we now know that thinking involves electrochemical activity, doesn't mean that we don't actually think....does it???:-\

peace & love to you O0

[Tin Lizzie]

Memories are not reliable recordings of events - they are malleable, can be changed, distorted and even implanted. ???

I think it highly unlikely that a memory from 2 years of age is a genuine one. Often we hear stories of events from other family members and these stories 'create' the memories. They're known as 'family memories'. I have a memory from when I was 10 months old. There's no way it can be a genuine memory and even though I know that I can still replay it vividly in my mind. It's not possible (AFAIK) to tell the difference between a false memory and a genuine one.

When we recall events, our memories are reconstructed and if an event has been embellished in some way or post-event information comes to light concerning the event then our memories can alter and assimilate these new details so we (mis)remember them as having been remembered as part of the event.

So there's no question that people who have pre-cognitive experiences (particularly with recalling pre-cognitive dreams) are genuine, but their memory (although completely vivid) may not be accurate.

Further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory


It's something to be aware of, at least.

absolutely, but i can assure you here that my memory is not tarnished by others' versions of events - i was the only one who heard that voice

i know there are probably some far more interesting cases around, but i have had quite a few precognetive / premonitive dreams, particularly one where i dreamt vividly that my girlfriend at the time was getting married to another guy. about 8 months or so later, soon after we had split up, i saw her with this very same guy. no mistake, no ambiguity.

thanks for your responses

[Julia]

[quote=John Jackson;17889]When faced with an afterlife or oblivion, I'd choose the afterlife every time. I can't see why anyone would have fear of an afterlife.

Personally I'd prefer oblivion. WHICH afterlife are we talking about? If it's the standard Christian Heaven-or-Hell scenario most of us will be going staight to Hell. If the Biblical pronouncements on suicide are correct my mother has been roasting in Hell for nineteen years.

The New Age/bog-standard medium's afterlife, on the other hand, seems to consist of spending eternity in the company of people whose intellectual abilities died with their physical bodies. Why aren't Shakespeare and Mozart using mediums to impart their new plays and operas? All we get are messages assuring us that Grandad is happy on the other side and Auntie Maureen likes the way you've redecorated her house.

I don't have any religious or mystical beliefs and I don't feel the need for any. I'm childless by choice so I don't have the dubious satisfaction of knowing that my DNA will be passed to future generations. And guess what? I don't lose any sleep over it.

[Tin Lizzie]

[
I don't have any religious or mystical beliefs and I don't feel the need for any. I'm childless by choice so I don't have the dubious satisfaction of knowing that my DNA will be passed to future generations. And guess what? I don't lose any sleep over it.

like your style. i would offer sincere condolences and try to say hey, be happy &c., but i get the feeling this will just p you off.

regards from a stranger who just likes being friendly to people.

tim

[fruitfly]

Now, the nasty one...I had been buying some pain-killers in a chemist, (in the country where this took place, east africa)

Nairobi, 1998?

[Tin Lizzie]

yes

[Tin Lizzie]

another fascinating piece of scientific research into the afterlife, courtesy once more of the SPR:

http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/index.htm

just an interesting snippet here:

If no further arguments have been advanced against the Scole phenomena, has anything further emerged in their favour? Three pieces of evidence merit placing on record. The first is the identification by Guy Playfair of an anomaly in the recording of the Rachmaninov 2nd Piano Concerto which we received - on an audio tape supplied and secretly marked by ourselves - apparently by paranormal means at Scole. The incident is fully described on pages 297-300 of the Scole Report, and we were told by the communicators that the composer was `going to play it himself ... as a projected memory'. We were also told that the music was a gift to one of us (MK) as a special treat, and MK, who was deeply moved by the music, confirmed subsequently that it had been a mainstay of his inner life during a lonely period of his childhood, a fact he had never divulged to his fellow investigators or to the Scole Group.

this is the kind of thing which is difficult to measure. although this may not appear to be of great utility, it shows how initial messages may be received which are intended to gain our attention and trust.

[Zaira]

Shirley,

"I don't think it's something to do with guardian angels or spirits but perhaps an aspect of human awareness that science has not yet explored."

The above is also one of my theories - 'It's us doing it'. But I haven't yet figured out how. The closest I have come is that it might be something that we developed to help us cope with crappy childhoods. Another is that it was caused by a bang to the head that triggered something in the brain. Saying that, I'm also saying that there is something going on and whatever it is it might be what causes some people to believe they are psychic.

[Zaira]

Julia,

"The New Age/bog-standard medium's afterlife, on the other hand, seems to consist of spending eternity in the company of people whose intellectual abilities died with their physical bodies. Why aren't Shakespeare and Mozart using mediums to impart their new plays and operas? All we get are messages assuring us that Grandad is happy on the other side and Auntie Maureen likes the way you've redecorated her house."

If I may, I would like to add my fanciful reply to what you wrote, Julia. The intellectual abilities are irrelevant to the entity that occupied the body. Shakespeare's and Mozart's entity went on to have many human existences. Perhaps the entities that occupied their bodies visited their loved ones simply to give them some comfort. When the entity first moves on it is aware of the sadness of the people left behind and it is able to send comfort, just the same way Granddad and Auntie Maureen do.

No one, no entity actually goes anywhere or visits anyone. The entities are all connected and are referred to as Spirit. When comfort is needed, it is in fact our own entity (a part of the whole) that provides that comfort by giving us an image of the one we miss or simply arranges for a sign, like the smell of flowers or a picture falling off a shelf. There are many, many, many signs. It is us who attach the meaning to them. For most people that is enough to convince them that their loved ones are okay.

This is just another of my theories. Please, folks, don't be offended. ;)

[Admin]

another fascinating piece of scientific research into the afterlife, courtesy once more of the SPR:

http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/index.htm

The trouble is that Scole has been heavily criticised for the lack of proper controls during their testing procedures. Things like holding séances in the dark but none of them were searched before the sitting and no infra-red cameras were used. Then hey presto - things happen!!

I just shake my head and wonder why they don't just do the testing properly.

[Zaira]

John,

What happens in ‘table tilting’? Quite some time ago I was new in a group and the group leader had two or three people put their hands flat on a table and they proceeded to lift the table off the floor. Back then I was pretty negative, and I wasn’t in the mood for ‘trick demonstrations’. How did they do that?

[Admin]

Spirits do it Zaira. ;)

[Zaira]

Have I upset you in some way?

[Tin Lizzie]

The trouble is that Scole has been heavily criticised for the lack of proper controls during their testing procedures. Things like holding séances in the dark but none of them were searched before the sitting and no infra-red cameras were used. Then hey presto - things happen!!

I just shake my head and wonder why they don't just do the testing properly.

true. and that is a shame - a great shame, for obviously if they had searched people and the results were the same, people may have sat up and taken notice. D' oh.

thanks for pointing that out

[Tin Lizzie]

Spirits do it Zaira. ;)

if they don't then what is the scientific explanation?

[vbloke]

Faraday devised some simple apparatus which conclusively demonstrated that the movements he investigated were due to unconscious muscular action.

The apparatus consisted of two small boards, with glass rollers between them, the whole fastened together by rubber bands in such a manner that the upper board could slide under lateral pressure to a limited extent over the lower one.

The occurrence of such lateral movement was at once indicated by means of an upright haystalk fastened to the apparatus. When by this means it was made clear to the experimenters that it was the fingers which moved the table, not the table the fingers, the phenomena ceased.

[tolman]

...Now, the nasty one...I had been buying some pain-killers in a chemist, (in the country where this took place, east africa)when very suddenly I was overwhelmed with a feeling of love and wonder, of love for the goodness that people are capable of (the guy was only giving me painkillers!). A few minutes later, when I was outside, I heard sounds (i recognised the sound of a hand-grenade and automatic gunfire) and saw a commotion. A little voice - different this time, and I think it may have been my own- told me to get myself and my friends moving, out of the main road and down a pedestrian area next to a tall building. This we did, and that is why I am still here today.

i say that voice may have been my own, but it still sounded as though someone was talking. i heard it, i didn't think it (i was too busy wondering what the hell was happening).

so...there.

peace.:smiley:
I'm a bit confused by that.
Are you saying you saw a real commotion and heard real munitions, and needed to hear a voice to tell you to go somewhere safer?
Have you any idea what fraction of people who'd been near you but who didn't move away ended up being killed?

[tolman]

another fascinating piece of scientific research into the afterlife, courtesy once more of the SPR:

...

this is the kind of thing which is difficult to measure. although this may not appear to be of great utility, it shows how initial messages may be received which are intended to gain our attention and trust.
Don't you think there could be rather more convincing ways of getting attention and trust, like doing something useful and hard to ignore or otherwise explain?
A whole hypothetical afterlife full of people, including many dead geniuses, could surely come up with some killer demonstrations.

[Tin Lizzie]

O0 nice.

The problem lies in the fact that we and spirit exist literally on different wavelengths (also these geinii may have long since been re-incarnated). As no two people are the same, various mediums experience spirit message in different ways i.e. through sensations, physical feelings, verbal messages, visual messages etc. etc.

I am not a medium, however if you checkthe posts by Lara123, who is a medium, or if you check the relevant thread on 'the psychic barber' forum, you'll get a better idea.

[Tin Lizzie]

I'm a bit confused by that.
Are you saying you saw a real commotion and heard real munitions, and needed to hear a voice to tell you to go somewhere safer?
Have you any idea what fraction of people who'd been near you but who didn't move away ended up being killed?

You clearly misunderstand.

Indeed i did hear a voice saying 'you need to start running'.

I can tell you from what I saw that the fraction of people who were near me, didn't move away and were killed/maimed was in fact extremely high. My friend will testify to this also. Obviously I can't give you an exact mathematical fraction or percentage. Apologies.

[Melanie]

Don't you think there could be rather more convincing ways of getting attention and trust, like doing something useful and hard to ignore or otherwise explain?
A whole hypothetical afterlife full of people, including many dead geniuses, could surely come up with some killer demonstrations.

Precisely. The 'cross correspondences' mentioned previously are a good example of (if you accept their apparent source) of a well-thought out attempt to provide unequivocal evidence of survival after death.

Having said that, it doesn't matter what evidence may be provided by 'spirits' via a medium or even a whole bunch of them, at the end of the day belief in the afterlife comes down to belief through evidence rather than knowledge through proof.

The evidence provided by the majority of mediums is almost always of a personal nature, which is never going to provide proof to anyone but the recipient. Evidence to base belief on, yes, but not proof for the populace at large.

Sadly, it may be that proof per se is never going to be possible.

[Dr B]

Statements like "mother says you need some 'you time' and is there something about a cat....possibly a dog....."

does not constitute evidence of anything....it's just rambling nonsense.

[Melanie]

Statements like "mother says you need some 'you time' and is there something about a cat....possibly a dog....."

does not constitute evidence of anything....it's just rambling nonsense.

Mediumistic readings are quite often much more detailed than that, Dr B. Have I taught you nothing?? ;) However, my previous post stands.

[Tin Lizzie]

Statements like "mother says you need some 'you time' and is there something about a cat....possibly a dog....."

does not constitute evidence of anything....it's just rambling nonsense.

absolutely. statements like 'your wife is saying that your cufflinks are at the bottom of the drawers inside your wardrobe' or 'a cat with ginger fur and white paws is saying that he is grateful to you for helping him pass over yesterday' are different.

[Dr B]

Mediumistic readings are quite often much more detailed than that, Dr B. Have I taught you nothing?? ;) However, my previous post stands.


sure they are and sure it does ;DO0

It was not directed at your post - even though it appears above after your post - sorry for not being clearer....but then....you should know that? :cheesy::ghost:

[Zaira]

tolman,

".. A whole hypothetical afterlife full of people, including many dead geniuses, could surely come up with some killer demonstrations."

Ooooh, and I was just getting my head straight.

*Zaira, switch to hypothetical mode then you can't be accused of being crazy* ;)

Hypothetically -

It isn't like that. The afterlife isn't full of people, dead geniuses or otherwise, who could come up with a killer demonstrations.

The spiritual entities (for want of a better phrase) don't need or want to provide 'demonstrations'. If anything, they think we are like children, with a lot to learn. I could go on but what's the point - it's only in my head.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q134/asdat/Ghost.gif

[Tin Lizzie]

Looks like someone's hit a nerve on this forum! O0

[Admin]

I could go on but what's the point - it's only in my head.

BINGO!!!!

That's the first advancement we've had in this debate for a couple of days.

Forget parallel universes, other dimensions, etc. The afterlife is a belief system and it only exists in the minds of those who believe it - it's not an external reality.

I'll admit I'm wrong when we get some proof. :cheesy:

[Tin Lizzie]

BINGO!!!!

That's the first advancement we've had in this debate for a couple of days.

Forget parallel universes, other dimensions, etc. The afterlife is a belief system and it only exists in the minds of those who believe it - it's not an external reality.

I'll admit I'm wrong when we get some proof. :cheesy:

I can't speak for Zaira, but would it not be best to take her remark as being a little tongue-in-cheek?

Zaira, apologies if this is not so.

Scientists will only accept scientific evidence, so i am personally wasting my time here - i doubt i will learn anything other than the specifics of debating technique!

[Admin]

Scientists will only accept scientific evidence, so i am personally wasting my time here

Agreed.

To preserve your belief system you simply can't, indeed daren't, look at this issue objectively.

Things that are real have facts and evidence to back them up, things that are belief based tend to rely on personal experience and anecdote. That goes for things across the board too: from alternative medicines, MLM, as well as psychic powers and the afterlife. Facts and belief do not go comfortably together when they disagree.

Those who believe in the afterlife don't seem to be able to take it on faith the way the religious do with their beliefs. Perhaps that's because communication has to be taken as being real to have any meaning to the recipient.

When facts and belief clash then one of them just has to go. Those who have an emotional need to believe, it's facts that get the push.

Perhaps that's why we're going round in circles with fact-free arguments here!

[tolman]

You clearly misunderstand.

Indeed i did hear a voice saying 'you need to start running'.
Misunderstand what? That you heard weapons going off, and you could tell their direction (since you knew which way to run), yet you required a subsequent 'voice' to get you move, and that you reckon that 'voice' (telling you something that many people could have deduced from the situation) is some kind of evidence for psychic/supernatural/whatever phenomena?

[Tin Lizzie]

Hmm, okay. it's a bit like that saying (i can't stand it but it illustrates the point) 'if a tree falls and there is no-one there to see it, how can we say that a tree has fallen?' - or words to that effect.
Well i really do hope that science will one day be capable of catching up on afterlife ;), however (no, don't laugh here) i do appreciate the scientific need for scientific evidence. i have never had the chance to explore my knowledge (okay, you call this belief) from a scientific standpoint, and i am very interested in learning more about the work of the SPR.
With reference to the 'test for an afterlife' you provided a link for recently, I sincerely hope that results are achieved....so long as they support the existence of the afterlife ;D

Yes, I don't think i can ever be truly objective here and even if an experiment such as yours came to a negative conclusion, i have seen, and people i know and trust have seen, too much for me to discount it.

regards,

Tim

[Tin Lizzie]

Misunderstand what? That you heard weapons going off, and you could tell their direction (since you knew which way to run), yet you required a subsequent 'voice' to get you move, and that you reckon that 'voice' (telling you something that many people could have deduced from the situation) is some kind of evidence for psychic/supernatural/whatever phenomena?

you complete, utter pillock. you don't even have the full story and already you are making one from your own imagination. Bugger off until you come back with a more reasonable approach (feel free to Pm me)

[tolman]

Hypothetically -

It isn't like that. The afterlife isn't full of people, dead geniuses or otherwise, who could come up with a killer demonstrations.

The spiritual entities (for want of a better phrase) don't need or want to provide 'demonstrations'. If anything, they think we are like children, with a lot to learn. I could go on but what's the point - it's only in my head.

So, we've got a lot to learn, but they're only really interested in helping people find lost cufflinks or saying "Tiddles says Hi!"?

That seems to make as much sense as visiting alien civilisations somehow only being interested in anal-probing solitary nocturnal travellers?)

[wooo_oops]

you complete, utter pillock. you don't even have the full story and already you are making one from your own imagination. Bugger off until you come back with a more reasonable approach (feel free to Pm me)

Blimey. I must be an utter pillock as well then. ???

[Tin Lizzie]

Blimey. I must be an utter pillock as well then. ???
er, no (well not yet anyway) ;) because you haven't made pre-judgemental statements regarding the incident in question. if you are unsure about anything, i am of course willing to help.

[wooo_oops]

A few minutes later, when I was outside, I heard sounds (i recognised the sound of a hand-grenade and automatic gunfire) and saw a commotion. A little voice - different this time, and I think it may have been my own- told me to get myself and my friends moving, out of the main road and down a pedestrian area next to a tall building. This we did, and that is why I am still here today.

i say that voice may have been my own, but it still sounded as though someone was talking. i heard it, i didn't think it (i was too busy wondering what the hell was happening).

This was the information you gave here and yes, sure there's more to your anecdote than that but people can't comment on what's been left out.

I just can't see how anybody who, on hearing sounds of gunfire and seeing a commotion (in a possibly politically unstable country), wouldn't be able to judge the situation rationally and make for a smart exit, voice in head or not.

[tolman]

you complete, utter pillock. you don't even have the full story and already you are making one from your own imagination. Bugger off until you come back with a more reasonable approach (feel free to Pm me)
In your description, you said you had clear evidence something bad was happening evidence that many people would consider enough to cause them to leave, and that you *then* heard a voice telling you to leave.
I'm still unsure what the point was that you were trying to make, since it's highly likely that most observers reading it would think
"Hang on, why did they need to hear the voice before making tracks?"
or
"What was the voice saying that they didn't already know?"

If there is more to the story that makes it make more sense, that makes the voice more special, you really should explain it.
If you don't understand why your story looks strange, I suggest you go back and try and look at what you wrote objectively.

If you don't want to look like a troll, you could possibly change your attitude a little.
Of course, it's possible you just want to chuck some childish insults around and get banned so you can then whine on about people not wanting to listen to your wisdom. You wouldn't be the first or last to go down that road.

[Tin Lizzie]

In your description, you said you had clear evidence something bad was happening evidence that many people would consider enough to cause them to leave, and that you *then* heard a voice telling you to leave.
I'm still unsure what the point was that you were trying to make, since it's highly likely that most observers reading it would think
"Hang on, why did they need to hear the voice before making tracks?"
or
"What was the voice saying that they didn't already know?"

If there is more to the story that makes it make more sense, that makes the voice more special, you really should explain it.
If you don't understand why your story looks strange, I suggest you go back and try and look at what you wrote objectively.

If you don't want to look like a troll, you could possibly change your attitude a little.
Of course, it's possible you just want to chuck some childish insults around and get banned so you can then whine on about people not wanting to listen to your wisdom. You wouldn't be the first or last to go down that road.

think i just answered this on another thread. before you refer to 'childish insults' i suggest you be more sensitive and take an approach which doesn't seem to imply that i am lying.

[Tin Lizzie]

This was the information you gave here and yes, sure there's more to your anecdote than that but people can't comment on what's been left out.

I just can't see how anybody who, on hearing sounds of gunfire and seeing a commotion (in a possibly politically unstable country), wouldn't be able to judge the situation rationally and make for a smart exit, voice in head or not.

i refer you to my response to trolman on another thread.
cheers. any further questions are most welcome.

[fruitfly]

you complete, utter pillock. you don't even have the full story and already you are making one from your own imagination. Bugger off until you come back with a more reasonable approach (feel free to Pm me)

Sorry, TL, but this is not a reasonable response. You do yourself no favours reacting like this. Given the information supplied in your original post, I think both Tolman and Woo-Oops make valid points.


i refer you to my response to trolman on another thread.
cheers. any further questions are most welcome.

If you feel you have already answered the questions on another thread, please post the link. You are averaging 31.98 posts per day so it might be helpful to point us in the right direction.

[tolman]

think i just answered this on another thread. before you refer to 'childish insults' i suggest you be more sensitive and take an approach which doesn't seem to imply that i am lying.
Possibly you could try answering on the appropriate thread, it does make things easier to follow for mere mortals.

Nowhere did I remotely suggest or imply that you were lying in any way about your blast story.

I just pointed out that it doesn't seem to need any kind of voice to tell someone that gunfire and hand grenades are good things to be away from. If you'd heard the voice before anything happened, that would be harder to explain.
As it is, there seems to be nothing at all in your story that needs an explanation in terms of access to special knowledge or insight.

PS
Misspelling names is rather childish, as was demonstrated by a recent poster, for whom it unfortunately seemed the height of her comic abilities.

[Tin Lizzie]

Possibly you could try answering on the appropriate thread, it does make things easier to follow for mere mortals.

Nowhere did I remotely suggest or imply that you were lying in any way about your blast story.

I just pointed out that it doesn't seem to need any kind of voice to tell someone that gunfire and hand grenades are good things to be away from. If you'd heard the voice before anything happened, that would be harder to explain.

True, but bearing in mind that a delay of a few seconds (yes, a few seconds) would have left me dead/maimed, i think this bears more significance.

How could anyone have assumed that the commotion was to be followed by the detonation of a 500kg-800kg bomb? (estimate from a Royal Engineers officer at the scene) I personally thought it was a mere bank robbery or similar

As it is, there seems to be nothing at all in your story that needs an explanation in terms of access to special knowledge or insight.

I beg to differ, particularly given the voice i heard as a child - or have you not read that bit?

PS
Misspelling names is rather childish, as was demonstrated by a recent poster, for whom it unfortunately seemed the height of her comic abilities.

Sarcasm isn't particularly amusing either (i'm on the male side of this species just in case you didn't gather)

[Tin Lizzie]

Sorry, TL, but this is not a reasonable response. You do yourself no favours reacting like this. Given the information supplied in your original post, I think both Tolman and Woo-Oops make valid points.

If you feel you have already answered the questions on another thread, please post the link. You are averaging 31.98 posts per day so it might be helpful to point us in the right direction.

You are right, fruitfly.

When i first viewed their posts i had just received a quite malevolent and 'ad-hom'-ic post on another thread from a member who shall remain nameless. I did actually contact the admin and i was incensed, to the point that i may have steamed in here in a non-too objective frame of mind. ithought 'well if it's good enough for them..'

I originally set up this thread for the reasons indicated at the start, and yes i did keep the bomb thing short. It is difficult to gauge people's meaning on these forums, without the benefit of body language, tone etc. and no doubt mis-perceptions have been made.

Thanks for pointing that out. if you still want to debate anything and shed new possibilities on things, i am here but i am having second thoughts over putting this experiene on the forum - i have not shared it with any of my friends apart from those who were there. most of my other friends know it happened but there is no way i am going to tell them about the voice, for reasons all too clear now.

i must admit though that nothing will change my mind over those voices. i heard them, one time it made the difference between life and death, and through my meditation and communication recently much has happened in relation. as i have no scientific 'proof' i am going to be content to merely float around in the background, gleaning knowledge wherever i may - there are some very interesting and knowledgable people here and i'm not being flattering but your comments and links have been much enjoyed and appreciated, so thanks and best wishes.

[Tin Lizzie]

This was the information you gave here and yes, sure there's more to your anecdote than that but people can't comment on what's been left out.

I just can't see how anybody who, on hearing sounds of gunfire and seeing a commotion (in a possibly politically unstable country), wouldn't be able to judge the situation rationally and make for a smart exit, voice in head or not.

I did admittedly leave it short, but thank you for taking an interest.

Sadly, who could have possibly guessed that the grenade and gunfire would have been followed by a bloody great massive bomb (500-800kg, according to an army officer at the scene) - probably the reason why not too many people did take action as quickly as myself (i am no billy whizz, by the way). these people paid with their lives and limbs. it was a very, very close thing and if somone/something hadn't popped that bit of advice in my ear i wouldn't be here writing.
thanks again for your interest, i regret mentioning this at all.

[tolman]

True, but bearing in mind that a delay of a few seconds (yes, a few seconds) would have left me dead/maimed, i think this bears more significance.

How could anyone have assumed that the commotion was to be followed by the detonation of a 500kg-800kg bomb? (estimate from a Royal Engineers officer at the scene) I personally thought it was a mere bank robbery or similar
You didn't say "I knew there was a huge bomb about to go off", you said you'd heard grenades and gunfire, and decided to move away. Moving away is an entirely understandable reaction to small-arms fire and grenade explosions.


As it is, there seems to be nothing at all in your story that needs an explanation in terms of access to special knowledge or insight.

I beg to differ, particularly given the voice i heard as a child - or have you not read that bit?
I was talking about the particular story of the Kenya incident.
As far as the child incident is concerned, see next post.


Sarcasm isn't particularly amusing either (i'm on the male side of this species just in case you didn't gather)
Your sex isn't important, since the particular comment was about someone else.

[Zaira]

tolman,

"So, we've got a lot to learn, but they're only really interested in helping people find lost cufflinks or saying "Tiddles says Hi!"?"

I can't believe you said that. You're better than that. I don't recall ever saying anything about finding lost cufflinks. All that stuff is on the other forum. I never claimed to be psychic or a medium. Come on, I didn't deserve that. ;)

[tolman]

firstly, i'll take you back to when i was about 8 years old; my mum and I were in the shopping centre in town and heading back to the bus stop. As we were walking, my mum a few yards ahead of me, I was drawn to look to my left, where there was a small dead-end alley, filled with dustbins and rubbish, and from where the fire exit to a major up-market store led out.

Suddenly I heard a clear, audible voice, all it said was 'bomb scare'. It was a male voice, almost expressionless and kind of 'matter-of-fact, that's how it is' in its tone. It had come from a source almost right next to me. I was terrified; my mum was walking on ahead of me totally unconcerned and the only other person nearby was an old lady walking the other way.

Then a strange thing happened. Don't ask me how I can remember this, I just can (I can remember things that happened when I was 2 years old). There was a gusty wind, and I had a sensation that there were 'people' in the air all around watching me. I was terrified. (i had a normal, trauma-free childhood btw)

We waited at the bus stop. The bus was late. We waited nearly 40 minutes. Then a lady approached from the way we had come and advised us to go to another bus stop around the corner, as the road further down had just been closed because of a bomb scare.
Just a few observations (ignoring the potential inaccuracy of childhood memory, which has already been commented on):

There was a time when bomb scares were far-from-rare events.

You say at the end someone told you the road had 'just' been closed due to a bomb scare, but what they might have meant by 'just' isn't certain. Unless the bus was a full 40 minutes late, I'd wonder if the road had been closed at least a few minutes earlier, and possibly more than just a few minutes earlier.

A road might take a few minutes to be closed after a bomb scare, which would potentially push back the bomb scare a little more.

A road would usually only be closed when police arrived (which would often involve sirens, maybe giving some kind of clue if they were heard in the distance)

From what you write, it's not obvious when the bomb scare actually started, and when you could have known about it, or whether it could have been something that anyone near you would have speculated on as traffic stopped passing and buses failed to materialise. Was there anyone near you during the 40 minutes, or was it just you and your mother at the bus stop the whole time?

[Tin Lizzie]

Just a few observations (ignoring the potential inaccuracy of childhood memory, which has already been commented on):

There was a time when bomb scares were far-from-rare events.

You say at the end someone told you the road had 'just' been closed due to a bomb scare, but what they might have meant by 'just' isn't certain. Unless the bus was a full 40 minutes late, I'd wonder if the road had been closed at least a few minutes earlier, and possibly more than just a few minutes earlier.

A road might take a few minutes to be closed after a bomb scare, which would potentially push back the bomb scare a little more.

A road would usually only be closed when police arrived (which would often involve sirens, maybe giving some kind of clue if they were heard in the distance)

From what you write, it's not obvious when the bomb scare actually started, and when you could have known about it, or whether it could have been something that anyone near you would have speculated on as traffic stopped passing and buses failed to materialise. Was there anyone near you during the 40 minutes, or was it just you and your mother at the bus stop the whole time?

There had never, and to my knowledge has not been since, a bomb scare in my home town, regardless of polotical events elsewhere.

I can see where you are trying to cover loose ends. yes, there were quite a few people at the bus stop by this time, but we were a good distance up the road from where i had heard the voice and i could not see that place, nor could i see any police activity.

[tolman]

tolman,

"So, we've got a lot to learn, but they're only really interested in helping people find lost cufflinks or saying "Tiddles says Hi!"?"

I can't believe you said that. You're better than that. I don't recall ever saying anything about finding lost cufflinks. All that stuff is on the other forum. I never claimed to be psychic or a medium. Come on, I didn't deserve that. ;)
Zaira, these seem to be the kinds of things that people suggest are at the better end of evidence for some spirit world.

If we do have a lot to learn, yet the afterlifers don't seem much interested in teaching, where does that leave us?

Also, let's not forget that given the age of humanity, any afterlifers would have had thousands of generations to try and help us poor childlike beings to learn, if that was what they wanted.
I'd be forced conclude that (if they exist), that wasn't what they wanted, they're extraordinarily bad at trying to communicate, or they just want a handful of believers that most people don't take seriously, and who may well not even agree amongst themselves.

[Tin Lizzie]

Zaira, these seem to be the kinds of things that people suggest are at the better end of evidence for some spirit world.

If we do have a lot to learn, yet the afterlifers don't seem much interested in teaching, where does that leave us?

Also, let's not forget that given the age of humanity, any afterlifers would have had thousands of generations to try and help us poor childlike beings to learn, if that was what they wanted.
I'd be forced conclude that (if they exist), that wasn't what they wanted, they're extraordinarily bad at trying to communicate, or they just want a handful of believers that most people don't take seriously, and who may well not even agree amongst themselves.

Essentially, it doesn't matter - we'll all be proved wrong or right and it will make no difference whether we were or not :smiley:

[tolman]

There had never, and to my knowledge has not been since, a bomb scare in my home town, regardless of polotical events elsewhere.
Fair enough.
I've come across quite a few myself, and not only when I was in London in the '80s but various other places in the '70s. I get the feeling I've probably seen more bomb scares than fire drills.


I can see where you are trying to cover loose ends. yes, there were quite a few people at the bus stop by this time, but we were a good distance up the road from where i had heard the voice and i could not see that place, nor could i see any police activity.
And no-one else at the bus stop could have wondered out loud about what had happened to the bus?

I'd still wonder when the scare actually started. Without knowing that, it leaves a fair bit up in the air as to possible information channels.

[Tin Lizzie]

Everyone at the bus stop was wondering what had happened to the bus (in the highly verbal and insistently repetitive way that some of the fairer sex do), but I - my memory is clear, although i obviously can't prove it! - was still speechless and more frightened than i had ever been. the only thing that worried me more was the fear of being ridiculed. wish i could help further! it was the clarity and tone of the voice that i really can not explain - i have never heard anyone sound like that. it was actually almost soothing.

anyway,

cheers.

[Zaira]

tolman,

Okay. You're forgiven. But you owe me a favour.
And I'm calling it in. And that favour is that you allow me to be a little crazy while I answer your points. Okay?

If I posted that it was difficult to explain, you might think that was just a cop-out. It is difficult to explain even to non-Skeptics never mind Skeptics. But I am not going to cop-out.

Thank you for this chance to put some of this across. It is merely the tip of the iceberg.

"Zaira, these seem to be the kinds of things that people suggest are at the better end of evidence for some spirit world."

Perhaps, but I don't believe in that type of spirit world.

"If we do have a lot to learn, yet the afterlifers don't seem much interested in teaching, where does that leave us?"

There are no 'afterlifers'. And it leaves us exactly where we are - we are born, we live and we learn and then we die - but a part of us goes on - or it could be said that it returns home.

"Also, let's not forget that given the age of humanity, any afterlifers would have had thousands of generations to try and help us poor childlike beings to learn, if that was what they wanted."

It isn't 'It’s' purpose to help us.

"I'd be forced conclude that (if they exist), that wasn't what they wanted, they're extraordinarily bad at trying to communicate, or they just want a handful of believers that most people don't take seriously, and who may well not even agree amongst themselves."

Describing 'It’s' purpose is rather complicated. It isn't 'It’s’ purpose to communicate with us. We have nothing 'It' wants. There is no 'themselves'.


I understand that for anyone attempting to take this on board there would be some huge ethical dilemmas. It can't be covered in one go. It is important to understand each step. If not explained properly, it may seem depressingly bad for us, but once you begin to get the whole concept you will see that it's something entirely different from what we may have expected. It turns out to be something less mystical and magical and more miraculous. It is something people should know about.

Show it to other people, see if anything rings a bell with them. Show it to some psychics - it's like passing around a picture of an alien, a little grey guy and discovering how many people recognise something familiar that they themselves may have thought of. If every single person fails to recognise something in it, I will accept that it is all in my head and never mention it again for as long as I live. ;)

[tolman]

Zaira,
When I was talking about people not agreeing among themselves, I was talking about believers with opinions on what the supposed afterlife is like, not members of the afterlife.
If an afterlife was as vague and largely noninterventionist as you seem to be saying, I'd wonder how you can be confident about what it's like, or even that it exists?


Show it to other people, see if anything rings a bell with them. Show it to some psychics - it's like passing around a picture of an alien, a little grey guy and discovering how many people recognise something familiar that they themselves may have thought of. If every single person fails to recognise something in it, I will accept that it is all in my head and never mention it again for as long as I live.
The problem with that analogy is that most people have already seen pictures/movies featuring all kinds of aliens, many of whom are also conveniently humanoid for practical reasons, and all of which were invented by people, frequently as some modification of other people's preceding ideas.
There are all kinds of conceptions of the nature of various afterlives going around, and it'd be extraordinarily unlikely that anyone's personal version of an afterlife would be entirely novel to everyone else.

[Zaira]

tolman,

"If an afterlife was as vague and largely noninterventionist as you seem to be saying, I'd wonder how you can be confident about what it's like, or even that it exists?"

I'm not confident that it exists. I'm talking about something I 'feel' but cannot explain. I'm sure you will appreciate that it is very difficult to explain this with the words we have available to us without sounding crazy. The best I can do is that it is not an afterlife. It's like another dimension - an unseen world. They whoever they are use us, in a way.... But we wouldn't Be without them and they couldn't be here without us. The body doesn't last and when it dies they return 'home' and can become One again with another body. This may be what some people call reincarnation. I think people have a sense of God because they have a sense of this unseen world. I believe that when people think they are being comforted by the spirit of a dead loved one they are actually being comforted by their own 'spirit' (don't have a word for 'them') the 'visitor' who joined with them for this earthly experience. There is a whole lot more to it but ‘It’ just gets crazier and crazier. ........... The point is that we are not alone and I'm not talking about anything out there like aliens or UFOs.... It's a lot closer.

I can't explain it any better. Maybe it was just a dream.
:smiley: