Fraudulent Mediums [Archive] - UK-Skeptics forum

Matt

30th April 2007, 01:36 PM

There's one of them there internet petitions doing the rounds again. It asks why the UK has the fraudulent mediums Act 1951 if it's never exercised. People are conned daily out of money on the promise of hearing from dead relatives or gaining a useful glimpse of their futures by people who have no greater talent than the ability to subtly determine what others want to hear and telling it to them.

Now I have nothing against an illusionist performing a mentalist act which is clearly for entertainment purposes only but see world of difference between that and Psychic Hotlines charging a premium rate and hiding "for entertainment purposes only" in some small print. I see a further world of difference between those with such legal disclaimers and practitioners such as Sally Morgan (http://www.psychicsally.com/) and Derek Acorah (http://www.derekacorah.org/) who claim without reservation to have genuine powers. Again I’ve got nothing against them making that claim – I just think l that if they are to charge people money for services based on that claim then given that steps should be taken to ensure that they are not fraudulent.

The way I see it, to practise as a Doctor you must prove yourself capable, people make life and death decisions based upon your advice. Likewise a financial adviser or any other number of professions.

Similarly if people are making important decisions based upon the advice of psychics then it is important that they determine that there are not charlatans. We all know that there are charlatans in this field, they have been comprehensively debunked by sceptics from Harry Houdini to James Randi.

If their claims are true they should be easily proven.

It appears that the UK legislation makes the presumption that anybody accepting money for such services is a charlatan. This is a presumption that I feel is overwhelmingly likely to be true. nonetheless I feel that a proper demonstration of psychic abilities in a scientifically controlled environment administered by experienced sceptics in the field should be adequate defence to such an accusation.

If you think that the law should be updated and applied then the petition is here.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/mediums/ (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/mediums/)

Admin

30th April 2007, 06:20 PM

Fraud is an equivocal term. It can mean anything from a ‘purposeful and deliberate intention to deceive another for gain’ to ‘something that appears to be something it’s not’. This makes it a little awkward in interpreting exactly what the FMA is aiming at.

I suspect, and we went into this last year when investigating the ‘psychic sisters’ operating in Selfridges’ store in London, that the only time the act would be used is when someone deliberately targets someone and uses the pretence of psychic ability to obtain their money/property/etc.

Even then, I think the prosecutions which do take place do so under different, and much better legislation than the FMA.

I’m generally not in favour of intervention and regulation unless it is clearly needed to avoid people and/or society being harmed (i.e. drug laws).

The problem with psychics is that none of them are authentic (in the sense of really doing what they claim) so do we introduce legislation that penalises them all? Remember, and skeptics aren’t always comfortable admitting this, that most psychics, most of the time, are providing a service that people want, without doing any harm; and may even do a lot of people a lot of good.

Perhaps certain sectors of organised scams like the psychic phone-lines and TV channels should be clamped down on as it’s quite clear that if it wasn’t for the ‘entertainment purposes only’ disclaimer they couldn’t get away with what they do. They are set up to cynically exploit people who are often at a low ebb in life – and that includes the ‘psychic readers’ themselves; people who are often poor and doing this out of desperation.

So it would be difficult to come up with meaningful legislation that hits the exploiters hard without affecting the run of the mill types. Then again, how would we deal with the ‘psychic detectives’? There would have to be (IMO) more legislation to deal with this sort of psychic parasite.

It’s not straightforward.

JonDonnis

6th May 2007, 10:56 PM

We started that petition in the hope that the Government would at least look at the act.

The problem is when Tony Blairs own wife believes in this nonsense.

Allo Allo

7th May 2007, 12:14 PM

It’s not straightforward.

John, I enjoyed this post which I felt was balanced and carefully thought out. I am still trying to get my thinking sorted out on “Psychic” things and absolutely agree that the commercial aspect of it is not on. However, some people do seem to have the knack of guiding others through some process that happens to them – a “knowing” – that might appear “paranormal”, but I don’t think is. This skill seems more “accurate” when there is a link of liking, being comfortable with, enjoying? the company of the other person. It doesn’t matter how it happens – but it does. That’s the reason it continues to be practiced….

In an artificial “testing” situation, this can’t happen – nor to psychics who do mass readings in big halls and groups. But I will bet there are thousands of “home” psychics who never crave the limelight, nor ask for much significantly in money – or who just do it for free - who are operating in the UK. I would think a lot of “untrained” healers work this way too under the 1951 law that actually protects them. In my opinion these members of the community have their place. If they are legislated against – we are back to the middle ages where skepticism becomes the "dogma" and is the only one allowed.

M

tkingdoll

7th May 2007, 02:45 PM

I don't really care what people get up to in the privacy of their own homes, the issue is the charging of money for services which cannot be proven to exist. Or more accuractly, those which claim to rely on a physical effect when in fact they rely on a psychological one.

However, that goes for sooooo many other things too, and if we are going to make mediumship illegal, we must also make homeopathy illegal, and hypnotherapy, firewalking, graphology, ghost tours, dreamcatchers, horoscopes, lucky charms, and so on for an almost endless list.

I don't want to live in a society that controls my personal choice with layers and layers of legislation. Rather, I want to live in a society which educates its members on what is or isn't possible, on the potential motivation of people selling placebos, and so on.

The key is always education. Making something illegal just makes it more alluring when the harm is not apparent and the benefits appear obvious. Alcohol is a good example of that. If you take something away that people enjoy, it does not stop them pursuing it.

HOWEVER, I do agree that all mediums who advertise (and anyone in the above list, really), even if they are not charging for their service, should have to have the 'entertainment' disclaimer on their materials, because a disclaimer does have an educative effect. And to enforce that, you would have to fine those who are non-compliant, and if they don't pay the fine then of course you'd have to take them to court.

chillzero

7th May 2007, 08:30 PM

So,
My old pal has revamped her website again:
http://www.dianelazarus.co.uk/

There's no disclaimer on there that I can see.

Who do we contact?

Jocky

9th May 2007, 11:34 AM

Who do we contact?

Trading Standards?

Matt

19th October 2007, 05:08 PM

http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page13563.asp

The Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 will be repealed from April 2008 by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2007 (CPRs) which implement the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD).
The CPRs include rules prohibiting conduct which misleads the average consumer and thereby causes, or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.
Although the average consumer would arguably not be misled by a person who claims he is able to contact the dead, such conduct would still be unfair under the CPRs if it deceives the average member of (i) the group to which it is directed, or (ii) a clearly identifiable group of consumers who are particularly vulnerable to this type of practice.
Unlike the Act, there is no requirement in the CPRs to prove an "intent to deceive". This means that where practices are aimed at vulnerable consumers or average members of particular groups, it should be easier to take action against fraudulent mediums than under the Act.
The CPRs will be enforced by both civil (injunctive) action and criminal sanctions.
Further information on the UCPD and the CPRs is available on BERR's website (http://www.berr.gov.uk/consumers/buying-selling/ucp/index.html)

chillzero

19th October 2007, 05:17 PM

8)

*does a happy dance*

td17_uk

19th October 2007, 10:16 PM

its almost worth a road trip isnt it 20 of us skeptics all going round the country on a bus individually making trips to see these clowns and then grassing them up LOL

chillzero

19th October 2007, 10:19 PM

its almost worth a road trip isnt it 20 of us skeptics all going round the country on a bus individually making trips to see these clowns and then grassing them up LOL

There's a team of guys that do that in India. They tour around, spot street side 'healers', and then go and repeat the same tricks for the crowd, to show them it's a trick. They are pretty cool.

I vote for a UK debunkybus.O0

td17_uk

19th October 2007, 10:30 PM

i like that the debunkybus LMAO we could call ourselves the debunkinatorsO0

bindeweede

19th October 2007, 10:37 PM

8)

*does a happy dance*

The petition received 365 signatures, if I have looked at the poll correctly. Surely the Govt. must already have been thinking of doing something - I cannot believe they would be pressurised by such a tiny number of sigs.

And one of the sigs was by "Sylvia Brown the Clown", so quite genuine.

tkingdoll

19th October 2007, 10:41 PM

The petition received 365 signatures, if I have looked at the poll correctly. Surely the Govt. must already have been thinking of doing something - I cannot believe they would be pressurised by such a tiny number of sigs.

Yes, it seems unlikely that a tiny voice was heard. I thought it might have been on the agenda anyway.

OR - they have a public face to maintain. Which means that they have to be seen to respond positively to at least some of the petitions, otherwise their figures would be awful and the site would look like lip service. Maybe they look for easy wins so they can say "yes, we changed policy based on 14 petitions this year, let no-one say we don't listen to the public!". I mean, it's hard to think of excuses to NOT implement this one, and it covers a trendy topic. I'd say it's an easy win.

We'll never know, I guess.

bindeweede

19th October 2007, 10:55 PM

Yes, it seems unlikely that a tiny voice was heard. I thought it might have been on the agenda anyway.

OR - they have a public face to maintain. Which means that they have to be seen to respond positively to at least some of the petitions, otherwise their figures would be awful and the site would look like lip service. Maybe they look for easy wins so they can say "yes, we changed policy based on 14 petitions this year, let no-one say we don't listen to the public!". I mean, it's hard to think of excuses to NOT implement this one, and it covers a trendy topic. I'd say it's an easy win.

We'll never know, I guess.

Blimey, and I thought I ???was cynical. Did you notice it was signed by "Doris Stokes" - am I geting mixed up with someone else?

I suppose it might need a lawyer to work out if there will be any difference from the existing legislation.

It was also signed by Degzy Acorah. Hmmmmm. Is this a suggestion that these petitions are open to dodginess;D

Julia

19th October 2007, 11:47 PM

And I see compulsive petition-signer Chris P Lettice has been busy again! I can't help feeling that petitions are a bit of a joke - they originated in the days when hardly anyone was able to vote and they were really the only way for ordinary people to make their views known.

bobdezon

20th October 2007, 03:06 AM

Oh thats not the good part, these petitions are insane read some of these.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/chinaslaves/

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/stop-ear-abuse/

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ukagingers/

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OldRedLion/

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/clarksonout/

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/fat-baggage/

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SaintChuck/

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/FREESKY/

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/jibbajabba/

chillzero

20th October 2007, 09:26 AM

Well, I was convinced I had signed this petition, but I can't find my name on it. I wonder if there is more than one.

Admin

20th October 2007, 10:36 AM

I don't think this new directive is being introduced as a result of the petition.

The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) was adopted on 11 May 2005. Regulations implementing the Directive in the UK will come in to force by April 2008.The fraudulent mediums act is worse than useless as it contains built-in get-out clauses like:

1.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person
who-
with intent to deceive purports to act as a spiritualistic medium or to exercise any powers of telepathy, clairvoyance or other similar powers, or in purporting to act as a spiritualistic medium or to exercise such powers as aforesaid, uses any fraudulent device, shall be guilty of an offence.
Then in section 5:

(5) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall apply to anything done solely for the purpose of entertainment.That's why it has seldom been used.

At least the government's statement says:

Although the average consumer would arguably not be misled by a person who claims he is able to contact the dead, such conduct would still be unfair under the CPRs if it deceives the average member of

(i) the group to which it is directed, or

(ii) a clearly identifiable group of consumers who are particularly vulnerable to this type of practice.

Unlike the Act, there is no requirement in the CPRs to prove an "intent to deceive".That, at least, removes one of the main weaknesses of the FMA. Claiming to believe that they are genuine is no longer a defence. It doesn't say anything about the 'entertainment purposes only' clause however. I suspect that this will still be a defence - I wonder if the psychic sisters in Selfridges will be putting up those disclaimers next year?

To be honest, I don't think much will change. People willingly go to psychics because they believe in them rather than because of high-pressure selling techniques etc. so I think that, even though psychics could be deemed as deceiving people, they are unlikely to be prosecuted.

Psychic hotline companies (and similar scams) would be more likely to be prosecuted than individuals but if the 'entertainment only' clause is still in effect then they are off the hook too.

I think all that's happening is that the FMA is being dropped, but it was a useless piece of legislation that was seldom used anyway. I don't think anything will change as a result of this.

tkingdoll

21st October 2007, 11:17 PM

Highly unlikely to have been a result of the petition, but that doesn't matter.

-ES-

29th November 2007, 04:04 PM

Hi

was just looking for something else on google and came across this thread which I feel inclined to reply to.

I myself am a medium and ive found this post very interesting, despite some strong opinions being mentioned, everyone is entitled to their opinions and i've got nothing against that, as long as it is done in a fair manner so to speak.

The 'Entertainment Clause' is mentioned on one of the main TV Services that i know and they clearly state in a ticker " Our services are intended for entertainment purposes only and connection to a tv personality cannot be guaranteed " or something similar to that. I think as long as this clause or something similar is stated on sites ofering readings ond so on it shouldnt be a problem to anyone.

I myself have a spiritual site and i'm introducing measures to help fish out the frauds, people have a right to use these services and a right to offer them as long as it is done legally and fairly, making such services illegal would be very unfair. Why penalise honest people offering an honest service? Free or not?

Personally I would never dream of charging for readings as it wouldnt feel right and it would feel like i am taking advantage of needy people, if someone needs such a sevice they should get it for free without being charged the earth for it.

bobdezon

29th November 2007, 04:16 PM

And why exactly do you think you are a medium?

Legaleagle

29th November 2007, 04:26 PM

And why exactly do you think you are a medium?

Maybe he has a 32 inch waist?

-ES-

29th November 2007, 04:27 PM

Hi

I beleieve I am a medium based on my experiences and over the past few years including ones i have each day.

InForAPennyInForApound

29th November 2007, 04:34 PM

Hi

I beleieve I am a medium based on my experiences and over the past few years including ones i have each day.

Would you kindly share with us what kind of experiences you have had over the years including your daily ones?

-ES-

29th November 2007, 05:10 PM

Hi

I will share what i can with you, rather what's appropriate to share.

It started when I was about 19 when I met this woman on a chatroom, she gave a reading and things developed from there, that's when started getting into it more, talking to the other psychics.

I can't go into specifics but after a while ( not straight away of course ) i started hearing things, seeing things, sensed things - what I heard, saw and felt was unmistakable to me and was all the proof I needed.

Meditation has helped in this process also, amongst other things it's helped me cope better with my disability, ADD for those that wish to know.

Cuddles

29th November 2007, 06:31 PM

It started when I was about 19 when I met this woman on a chatroom, she gave a reading and things developed from there, that's when started getting into it more, talking to the other psychics.

I can't go into specifics but after a while ( not straight away of course ) i started hearing things, seeing things, sensed things - what I heard, saw and felt was unmistakable to me and was all the proof I needed.

So you did some cold reading and then started hallucinating? I'm sorry, but you'll have to go into a little more detail than that.

Maybe he has a 32 inch waist?

Nah, that's a small.

chillzero

29th November 2007, 07:18 PM

I myself have a spiritual site and i'm introducing measures to help fish out the frauds, people have a right to use these services and a right to offer them as long as it is done legally and fairly, making such services illegal would be very unfair. Why penalise honest people offering an honest service? Free or not?

Hi! Welcome to the forum.

What measures do you think can be taken to weed out the frauds? How can you tell the difference between a fraud and a true medium?

-ES-

29th November 2007, 07:52 PM

Hi

lol no there was a bit more to it than just a cold reading and hallucinations, not long after I met this woman, I started hearing banging noises and scraping noises in my room, to me at least they seemd paranomal as whenever I hear seemingly paranormal noises they seem a little, faint or distant, even the louder bangs I heard, they were quite alarming I must say.

I hear spirits say something, or sense something and then I sometimes wait a few hours, or even a few days and then I get confirmation what they said was true or what they said would happen happens, for example say i'd been worrying about something and they said to me " it will work out fine " and then the next day the matter is resolved. Probably not the best of examples but it's complicated to explain to someone skeptical.

As for the measures im taking to fish out the frauds, if you mean the method on my site, it will be via a series of readings or tests designed to test a readers abilities and accuracy, they will be carried about by myself or forum staff who are also psychics/mediums whom have proven their abilities to me. If you want to read more about it feel free to visit my site.

I hope I was able to answer some of your questions.

ES

chillzero

29th November 2007, 08:03 PM

As for the measures im taking to fish out the frauds, if you mean the method on my site, it will be via a series of readings or tests designed to test a readers abilities and accuracy, they will be carried about by myself or forum staff who are also psychics/mediums whom have proven their abilities to me. If you want to read more about it feel free to visit my site.

I hope I was able to answer some of your questions.

ES

I would prefer to discuss it here, since you brought the topic up here.

How can you tell the difference between a readign by a fake, and a reading by a non-fake?

How have other people proven their abilities to you? Could you walk us through one example?

FarSideOfTheMoon

29th November 2007, 08:09 PM

Hi

....

As for the measures im taking to fish out the frauds, if you mean the method on my site, it will be via a series of readings or tests designed to test a readers abilities and accuracy, they will be carried about by myself or forum staff who are also psychics/mediums whom have proven their abilities to me. If you want to read more about it feel free to visit my site.

I hope I was able to answer some of your questions.

ES

Ah, therein may lie a bit of a problem.

You are using the same level of proof which you have convinced yourself with.

I'm interested to find out more about how you really know you are a medium.

-ES-

29th November 2007, 09:09 PM

I wasn't asking to discuss it elsewhere, I was simply pointing to my site incase anybody wanted to read more about it.

It is complicated to explain how I know I am one to someone who doesn't fully understand, especially someone skeptical.

Hearing the voices of the spirits around me was enough proof for me ok for the first few times i heard them it was like, am I going insane here? is this really happening? "confirmation" being the key word.

I did a reading for my friend once and his guide came through, he of course allready knew most things there was to know about him, i however didn't. I described the figure I was seing in my mind to my friend and he confirmed what I was seeing was true. I also picked up on other things about him, such as certain things him and his guide both know, what his guides role is, as each guide has their own role to play.

This is a recent example but thought it was easier to use to help describe the "how i know" part better. Basically thats how i know i'm a medium, through experiences such as those and through getting confirmations on information I receive.

------

A reading by a fake would be fairly easy to spot, the level of accuracy would be next to nothing, or they may repeat things. They may also take a guess by saying several things such as - you've got a green car, or kitchen or jumper - wheras a true medium may say something like " I feel he was a tall man possibly early 40's or mid 40's"

Perhaps not the best of example i know but im trying to explain the best I can. Some things a non-psychic/medium may not be able to tell could be something like sensing bad energy or vibes from the person, which has happened to me before. A psyhic friend picked up on bad vibes from someone who joined my old forum, and soon after it was hacked, hence why the istes under a new name now and incase you ask how do I know she wasnt th hacker, she is someone I would trust with my life and has given me very accurate readings before.

Apologies for taking so long to respond, I was interupted in the middle of writing it.

FarSideOfTheMoon

29th November 2007, 09:12 PM

-ES-

29th November 2007, 09:28 PM

bobdezon

29th November 2007, 09:29 PM

Hi

I beleieve I am a medium based on my experiences and over the past few years including ones i have each day.

Are you happy with that description? Is it somehow fullfilling for you to be a medium? Could you accept you were infact not a medium if offered evidence to the contrary that your belief is flawed and you are making only a causal relationship between events and a your perception of reality?

Would you accept a rational sceptical alternative of the events that led you to believe you were magical?

If you would and are even slightly objective you could post an account of your experiences and we could discuss it. Or you can just keep claiming to be a medium and carry on regardless.

truthseekerlee

29th November 2007, 09:30 PM

Do you think there any famous psychics who aren't fake?

I believe in Gordon Smith's abilities as a medium, a golden example of how well grounded and true and honest we mediums should be. I follow a 'Code of Conduct' which I've written about on my website. Most psychic websites appear to be all about themselves instead of their work or what they stand for. I hope to help, in every way I can, educate everyone alike, to understand the way mediumship works, and why Spirits are the ones who come to us rather than us calling on them.

FarSideOfTheMoon

29th November 2007, 09:31 PM

FarSideOfTheMoon

29th November 2007, 09:34 PM

I believe in Gordon Smith's abilities as a medium, a golden example of how well grounded and true and honest we mediums should be. I follow a 'Code of Conduct' which I've written about on my website. Most psychic websites appear to be all about themselves instead of their work or what they stand for. I hope to help, in every way I can, educate everyone alike, to understand the way mediumship works, and why Spirits are the ones who come to us rather than us calling on them.

Gordon Smith uses cold reading techniques. He isn't so convincing when he doesn't have the chance to gather information about the subject before the reading.

You could start by educating us as to why we should understand the way mediumship works when there is no actual evidence that it does.

-ES-

29th November 2007, 09:36 PM

Sorry for dupe post, net problems.

-ES-

29th November 2007, 09:48 PM

Have a lot to learn?

not sure how im meant to take that?

bobdezon

29th November 2007, 09:50 PM

I believe in Gordon Smith's abilities as a medium, a golden example of how well grounded and true and honest we mediums should be. I follow a 'Code of Conduct' which I've written about on my website. Most psychic websites appear to be all about themselves instead of their work or what they stand for. I hope to help, in every way I can, educate everyone alike, to understand the way mediumship works, and why Spirits are the ones who come to us rather than us calling on them.

Gordon Smith is the best cold reader we have in the famous medium category. Hes very impressive, however it is still blatently cold reading. You should read a transcript of one of his readings to see the cold reading at work. Its full of barnum statements and utilises the forer effect quite well.

http://badpsychics.com/thefraudfiles/modules/news/article.php?storyid=526

bobdezon

29th November 2007, 09:53 PM

Hi again

allthough he may seem like he 'overdoes' things sometimes I believe Derek Acorah to be an honest medium/psychic, he seems like he's a decent down to earth bloke.

I dont pay much attention to TV psychics to be honest as some seem to overreact, but I was lucky enough to be able to talk to some of the psychics on one of the TV Psychic shows, Psychic-Interactive. They used to have a chatroom on their where you could talk to the psychics/presenters during the breaks and they gave me some very helpful advice and I do believe their gifts to be genuine.

I'm not a big fan of the whole premuim rate thing but I do believe the service they offer is genuine.

Derek acorah is indeed a likeable character, however a cult of personality does not mean it is truthful. Derek is incredibly bad at being a psychic/medium. Anyone can objectively see that unless they like derek.
How many times has he been nicked after being fed wrong info, how many faked possessions must the man do before people say "derek sod off". Its hilarious to see him try though I must admit.

FarSideOfTheMoon

29th November 2007, 10:02 PM

Have a lot to learn?

not sure how im meant to take that?

Sorry, not meaning offence.

But Acorah and the people who do those psychic channels are about as psychic as my big toe.

Most of the people on this forum are aware of the techniques which psychics use. Sometimes these techniques are used in a fraudulent way, sometimes the person maybe doesn't realise and has convinced themself they are psychic.

Bob has pointed you in the direction of the BadPsychics site - are you aware of it?

-ES-

29th November 2007, 10:40 PM

No offence taken, I wasn't aware of the site untill now but have just been reading it over, certainly an interesting read and some interesting points made.

truthseekerlee

29th November 2007, 10:56 PM

BadPsychics isn't exactly a site I'd take seriously, good for a laugh, but with their verbal abuse, mainly from the owner, with attitudes like that how can one appreciate their 'reports' when they tackle situations immaturely.

I've seen frauds at work, pretty easy to recognize, especially in person. I'm a medium, but I don't claim to be a spiritualist medium, I'm rather against spiritualism in all honesty, as so many frauds are within the churches and even control them, so I do my best to not associate myself to them, I made a vow to my Spirit Guides that I would serve them well and not stray from my spiritual path, nor take advantage of my position as a medium. I hate charging for readings, don't feel it is right, I always have this inner feeling of guilt charging, because we are dealing with real emotions with vulnerable people whether they're grief-stricken or not.

Some of my psychic friends say to me "But you have to eat.", well yes, but I feel readings should be free; I'm not against selling products, crystals, books, but as far as readings go, I feel mediums, true mediums, should have a heart - if they have one.

bobdezon

29th November 2007, 11:05 PM

wow a medium who doesnt like badpsychics ::)

bindeweede

29th November 2007, 11:05 PM

I hate charging for readings, don't feel it is right, I always have this inner feeling of guilt charging, because we are dealing with real emotions with vulnerable people whether they're grief-stricken or not.

Your sincerity brings a tear to my eye.

And I'm not so clear as to what this means......

but as far as readings go, I feel mediums, true mediums, should have a heart - if they have one.

-ES-

29th November 2007, 11:12 PM

In what way was that meant? not sarcasm I hope, no need for that.

bindeweede

29th November 2007, 11:15 PM

In what way was that meant? not sarcasm I hope, no need for that.
You said you don't like to charge for readings. You didn't say you didn't charge for readings.

truthseekerlee

29th November 2007, 11:17 PM

You said you don't like to charge for readings. You didn't say you didn't charge for readings.

I don't.
Sorry if I didn't make that clearer in my previous post.

-ES-

29th November 2007, 11:17 PM

No I didn't - i've never charged for a reading nor never will. Perhaps check to see who posted the message first lol, it was a quote :p

FarSideOfTheMoon

29th November 2007, 11:18 PM

wow a medium who doesnt like badpsychics ::)

Tell Jon to go take out the humour. The psychics won't take it seriously until he does. ::)

truthseekerlee

29th November 2007, 11:22 PM

Tell Jon to go take out the humour. The psychics won't take it seriously until he does. ::)

Oh for peeps sakes, lol, I don't feel them using foul language is setting a good example for "professional" journalism. And I've had Jon on my site, verbally abusing myself and other members (on original website that's now closed due to recent upgrade), judging me "you don't know what the real world is like, you're just a little boy." he'd be very surprised if he met me in person. A very disrespectful man.

seren

29th November 2007, 11:25 PM

Hello and welcome all noobs.

A reading by a fake would be fairly easy to spot, the level of accuracy would be next to nothing, or they may repeat things. They may also take a guess by saying several things such as - you've got a green car, or kitchen or jumper - wheras a true medium may say something like " I feel he was a tall man possibly early 40's or mid 40's"

I've seen frauds at work, pretty easy to recognize, especially in person

This is a genuine question- how can you tell this is fake? (other than that he says it is, of course....)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o7XIf-z1J4w

FarSideOfTheMoon

29th November 2007, 11:25 PM

Oh for peeps sakes, lol, I don't feel them using foul language is setting a good example for "professional" journalism.

It's not trying to be professional journalism though. It has it's own style, one which is very successful in cutting the crap and getting to the point. Some things are so ludicrous they just have to be laughed at.

I can fully understand why it is uncomfortable reading for some.

-ES-

29th November 2007, 11:38 PM

That doesn't sound nice at all, you can still voice your opinions about it without being rude or abusive about it like that.

bindeweede

29th November 2007, 11:40 PM

No I didn't - i've never charged for a reading nor never will. Perhaps check to see who posted the message first lol, it was a quote :p

Things have got mixed up here. I was refering to Truthseeker saying he/she did not like charging. Your reply came up, which I misunderstood.
Sincere apologies.

-ES-

29th November 2007, 11:43 PM

No harm done lol

bindeweede

29th November 2007, 11:49 PM

No harm done lol

I'm happy about that.

FarSideOfTheMoon

30th November 2007, 12:11 AM

That doesn't sound nice at all, you can still voice your opinions about it without being rude or abusive about it like that.

Do you think it is ok to be rude to the fakes?

Because every psychic featured on BadPsychics is a fake O0

bindeweede

30th November 2007, 12:18 AM

Doing a bit of hunting, I came across this from John Jackson....Sept. 27th.

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

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

truthseekerlee

30th November 2007, 12:32 AM

Death - can we all honestly say that once we die that that's it, we're brown bread, worm food....for our physical bodies yes, but not for our souls. I never understand why skeptics find it so difficult in to believe there is life after physical death, I mean, we all believe that the planets are in space, we believe that we are all real, we all believe in what we can see and touch on our own planet. Just because science doesn't have the answer yet, does not mean it's non-existent.

I've had moments where I've wanted to give up on my mediumship because I didn't feel I was getting enough proof, I wanted it all right there and then, but I've come to accept that it doesn't happen overnight, it takes effort on our part to develop, developing trust too, because Spirit want to be sure they can trust us too. There are mediums born into the world who have the ability naturally and grow up seeing spirit people clearly and talk to them without any fear.

Even if it was scientifically proved, would everyone believe it??? For some reason, I don't think so lol. Although I suppose it depends on what facts that base their evidence on.

bindeweede

30th November 2007, 12:46 AM

truthseekerlee

30th November 2007, 12:49 AM

bindeweede

30th November 2007, 12:58 AM

...well yeah.:smiley:
And your conclusions are...........?

Still on-line, but no answer?

Lord Muck oGentry

30th November 2007, 01:05 AM

I never understand why skeptics find it so difficult in to believe there is life after physical death,

I mean, we all believe that the planets are in space, we believe that we are all real, we all believe in what we can see and touch on our own planet.

Just because science doesn't have the answer yet, does not mean it's non-existent.

Even if it was scientifically proved, would everyone believe it???

Although I suppose it depends on what facts that base their evidence on.

Evidence?

Yes.

Burden of proof.

Yes.

Burden of proof.

tsl,

I certainly don't want to discourage you by seeming brusque. But if you want people to believe that in some sense we can survive death, you need evidence.

truthseekerlee

30th November 2007, 01:09 AM

For me, saying there's no life after death, is like saying there's no such thing as disabilities, I have a physical disability, called Goldenhars Syndrome quite rare; through its hurdles that it has presented before me in my life so far, whether difficult to overcome or not, have taught me an understanding of life and allowed me to have an open mind, and be more sensitive to different energies, spirits, because that's what they are - eternal energy.

So, bindeweede, please do not patronize me as I would not do it to you, you are entitled to your opinions as is everybody else, and I respect that dearly. ;)

truthseekerlee

30th November 2007, 01:10 AM

Evidence?

Yes.

Burden of proof.

Yes.

Burden of proof.

tsl,

I certainly don't want to discourage you by seeming brusque. But if you want people to believe that in some sense we can survive death, you need evidence.

Yeah, I am all for science to discover evidence.

bobdezon

30th November 2007, 01:15 AM

For me, saying there's no life after death, is like saying there's no such thing as disabilities, I have a physical disability

I am also severely disabled, infact I was born with arthritis which has practically crippled me, got a wheelchair and everything. I have an open mind too, I however did not retreat into fantasy, I faced my problems head on, and I am a sceptic.

You are not very good at drawing a correlation to be honest.

Lord Muck oGentry

30th November 2007, 01:19 AM

Yeah, I am all for science to discover evidence.

So where is the evidence?

bindeweede

30th November 2007, 01:25 AM

Truth seeker
I am not patronising you. I am questioning your beliefs. You have come up with nothing.

bindeweede

30th November 2007, 01:40 AM

For me, saying there's no life after death, is like saying there's no such thing as disabilities,

Could you explain, please.

seren

30th November 2007, 02:53 AM

I'd like my question from the previous page answered, if anyone feels they can. :sad:

As someone who works in disability rights, working with and for people with bobdezon's condition and other types of musculoskeletal disorder, I'm a little bothered by your invocation of "disability" truthseeker.

I can't see what it has to do with being a medium for a start, but bobdezon's already covered that.

No, what bothers me is that you followed your paragraph about your disability with a request not to be patronised. That makes it look like you're trying to make people feel guilty. "Don't pick on the poor disabled person". I hope I've just misunderstood you, because that's a fairly appalling thing to do, both to the people debating with you here (whom, incidentally, may all be disabled too for all we know), and to the "image" of disabled people in general, most of whom I suspect would prefer to be engaged and challenged in debate in the same way anyone else would.

If, however, you feel your condition makes participation on this board difficult- maybe you can't post frequently, for example- then I urge you to say so, so it can be taken into account in people's responses to you.

So I would invite you to state now whether you think we need to make allowances for you or treat you differently, and if so, how. Otherwise I'm worried there'll be accusations of bullying and discrimination further down the line.

truthseekerlee

30th November 2007, 04:20 AM

ZERO

30th November 2007, 07:37 AM

Death - can we all honestly say that once we die that that's it, we're brown bread, worm food....for our physical bodies yes, but not for our souls.
This is a genuine question: Do you think fish and cows have souls?

I never understand why skeptics find it so difficult in to believe there is life after physical death, I mean, we all believe that the planets are in space, we believe that we are all real, we all believe in what we can see and touch on our own planet. Just because science doesn't have the answer yet, does not mean it's non-existent.
Without any evidence its just an idea pulled out of thin air. No evidence can support any belief.

Even if it was scientifically proved, would everyone believe it??? For some reason, I don't think so lol. Although I suppose it depends on what facts that base their evidence on.
I'd love to believe in life after death. I really, really don't want to die. Unfortunatly there is no evidence to support it.

chillzero

30th November 2007, 08:30 AM

I wasn't asking to discuss it elsewhere, I was simply pointing to my site incase anybody wanted to read more about it.

Apologies. It just seemed to me like you were punting your site, for a moment.

It is complicated to explain how I know I am one to someone who doesn't fully understand, especially someone skeptical.

That's quite an assumption you have made there. How do you know I don't fully understand? I have experience that means I very much understand psychic mentality, but I have a point beyond which I have no answers. I start asking each new psychic I come across, but have never yet got very far along my particular of questions.

I constantly hope to get into a good discussion of this process with a psychic, and maybe someday I will identify a genuine psychic, and yet none have responded with me for more than the first few questions. They focus instead on finding insults in other peoples' posts - whether intended or not - and ignore what I ask. Hopefully, this time will be different.O0

Hearing the voices of the spirits around me was enough proof for me ok for the first few times i heard them it was like, am I going insane here? is this really happening? "confirmation" being the key word.

I did a reading for my friend once and his guide came through, he of course allready knew most things there was to know about him, i however didn't.

Perhaps you had discussed and picked up more than you realised?

I described the figure I was seing in my mind to my friend and he confirmed what I was seeing was true. I also picked up on other things about him, such as certain things him and his guide both know, what his guides role is, as each guide has their own role to play.

So nothing verifiable, other than the word of your friend?

This is a recent example but thought it was easier to use to help describe the "how i know" part better. Basically thats how i know i'm a medium, through experiences such as those and through getting confirmations on information I receive.

What kind of confirmations? What kind of information?

A reading by a fake would be fairly easy to spot, the level of accuracy would be next to nothing, or they may repeat things. They may also take a guess by saying several things such as - you've got a green car, or kitchen or jumper - wheras a true medium may say something like " I feel he was a tall man possibly early 40's or mid 40's"

Perhaps not the best of example i know but im trying to explain the best I can.

No, not really the best example, because both could be done by cold reading.

Some things a non-psychic/medium may not be able to tell could be something like sensing bad energy or vibes from the person, which has happened to me before. A psyhic friend picked up on bad vibes from someone who joined my old forum, and soon after it was hacked, hence why the istes under a new name now

So, do you believe that 'instinct' or 'suspicion' are paranormal 'gifts'?

and incase you ask how do I know she wasnt th hacker, she is someone I would trust with my life and has given me very accurate readings before.

I hope you are correct with that. :smiley: Does that mean that you have no actual evidence that her 'vibes' were correct? Did you just trust her, and make all these changes, and not get proof about the person she identified?

FarSideOfTheMoon

30th November 2007, 08:37 AM

This is a genuine question: Do you think fish and cows have souls?

What about insects, plankton, bacteria?

Legaleagle

30th November 2007, 10:03 AM

Cuddles

30th November 2007, 10:45 AM

we all believe in what we can see

This may be your problem. If you believe everything you see, you're going to have serious problems telling what is real and what isn't.

http://alvinology.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/the-spinning-silhouette-optical-illusion/
Which way is the ballerina spinning?

-ES-

30th November 2007, 10:50 AM

Do you think it is ok to be rude to the fakes?

Because every psychic featured on BadPsychics is a fake O0

Hi

no offence you nor anyone else can proove that, especially not someone who makes remarks like he did to truthseekerlee, I'm sorry but I can't take someone like that seriously, I agree theres a time and a place for being rude but theres a fake and theres saying someones a fake and their not.

Look at it from this point of view, if you had a genuine gift and people started calling you a fake and was being rude and degrading about it how would you feel? You'd be a tad peeved too.

Cuddles

30th November 2007, 10:54 AM

Look at it from this point of view, if you had a genuine gift and people started calling you a fake and was being rude and degrading about it how would you feel? You'd be a tad peeved too.

No I wouldn't. I'd just prove it. That would shut up anyone who tried to criticise me. It's amazing how there are so many people with amazing powers, yet every single one either refuses any kind of test or fails miserably when they are tested.

-ES-

30th November 2007, 11:13 AM

Apologies. It just seemed to me like you were punting your site, for a moment.

Thats quite allright

That's quite an assumption you have made there. How do you know I don't fully understand? I have experience that means I very much understand psychic mentality, but I have a point beyond which I have no answers. I start asking each new psychic I come across, but have never yet got very far along my particular of questions.

I constantly hope to get into a good discussion of this process with a psychic, and maybe someday I will identify a genuine psychic, and yet none have responded with me for more than the first few questions. They focus instead on finding insults in other peoples' posts - whether intended or not - and ignore what I ask. Hopefully, this time will be different.O0

I was speaking in general terms and meant no offence, I certainly didnt come on here to fire insults either I actualy wanted to come here and discuss things as best I could.

Perhaps you had discussed and picked up more than you realised?

I think I know what your trying to get at here, in short I believe what I picked up wasnt information I allready discussed with him, as it was something which he had not told me.

So nothing verifiable, other than the word of your friend?

From your point of view no, but I trust my friend not everyone is going to simply agree, out of spite or for prank or for suchlike with everything i pick up on are they? not everyone is out to get me

What kind of confirmations? What kind of information?

Would it make much difference if I said? wouldnt you just find another question anyway? I don't want to spend all day listing examples if they're going to be gone over with a fine toothpick lol

No, not really the best example, because both could be done by cold reading.

What's wrong with that? that's how a lot of psychics will work, if I listed another example no doubt youd find something wrong with that too lol, no offence.

So, do you believe that 'instinct' or 'suspicion' are paranormal 'gifts'?

They're a natural ability within all of us, some use it on a different level to others, on a spiritual level for example, and the example I gave has nothing to do with instinct or suspicion, at least from a medium or psychics point of view, it's something we actualy sense, not so much a hunch so to speak.

I hope you are correct with that. :smiley: Does that mean that you have no actual evidence that her 'vibes' were correct? Did you just trust her, and make all these changes, and not get proof about the person she identified?

I trust her and know that shes not the hacker, as I said above is everyone out to get me?

-ES-

30th November 2007, 11:19 AM

How on earth can you proove something to someone who immediatly disprooves everything you try to do? It's not as simple as ABC - and please dont say why not, or it is.

FarSideOfTheMoon

30th November 2007, 11:42 AM

Hi

no offence you nor anyone else can proove that, especially not someone who makes remarks like he did to truthseekerlee, I'm sorry but I can't take someone like that seriously, I agree theres a time and a place for being rude but theres a fake and theres saying someones a fake and their not.

Look at it from this point of view, if you had a genuine gift and people started calling you a fake and was being rude and degrading about it how would you feel? You'd be a tad peeved too.

I'd prove it too.

It would have profound implications on the whole of humanity.

FarSideOfTheMoon

30th November 2007, 11:44 AM

How on earth can you proove something to someone who immediatly disprooves everything you try to do? It's not as simple as ABC - and please dont say why not, or it is.

That's not how proof works.

No one will disprove your proof, if it really is proof.

What people are able to do is show why your evidence does not constitute proof.

-ES-

30th November 2007, 11:46 AM

I'd prove it too.

It would have profound implications on the whole of humanity.

Like i said, if you proved it there would still be people who would disprove it and scream fraud, even if you proved it to the world. This is my point, you can't simply prove it - people would simply try to disprove it. I can't understand why this is so hard to understand.

FarSideOfTheMoon

30th November 2007, 11:46 AM

No, not really the best example, because both could be done by cold reading.

What's wrong with that? that's how a lot of psychics will work, if I listed another example no doubt youd find something wrong with that too lol, no offence.

So, do you believe that 'instinct' or 'suspicion' are paranormal 'gifts'?

They're a natural ability within all of us, some use it on a different level to others, on a spiritual level for example, and the example I gave has nothing to do with instinct or suspicion, at least from a medium or psychics point of view, it's something we actualy sense, not so much a hunch so to speak.

A lot of psychics work that way because that is how cold reading works.

We all have different personalities and some people are more intuitive than others for instance. However there is nothing paranormal about that. Just some people convince themselves they are special when they are not.

You might just be finding your feet at the moment with us skeptics, however you need to understand that a) we have seen these claims before and they are never substantiated b) we require a level of evidence which you don't seem able to provide other than waffle or annecdote

FarSideOfTheMoon

30th November 2007, 11:48 AM

chillzero

30th November 2007, 11:49 AM

First - 'Quote' function - down there at the bottom right of each post - a really useful tool.

I was speaking in general terms and meant no offence, I certainly didnt come on here to fire insults either I actualy wanted to come here and discuss things as best I could.

Good, I look forward to discussion.

I think I know what your trying to get at here, in short I believe what I picked up wasnt information I allready discussed with him, as it was something which he had not told me.

I know that's not what you believe, but I wondered if you would even entertain the possibility... in the interests of open-mindedness, and all.

From your point of view no, but I trust my friend not everyone is going to simply agree, out of spite or for prank or for suchlike with everything i pick up on are they? not everyone is out to get me

I didn't say it needed to be nasty in that it was deliberately done for spite or a prank. I merely pointed out that the information you discuss is not something verifiable. It is opinion and feelings, and your friend - who also believes these same things - agreed with you.

Would it make much difference if I said? wouldnt you just find another question anyway? I don't want to spend all day listing examples if they're going to be gone over with a fine toothpick lol

Again with the assumptions. I thought you indicated a willingness to discuss these matters. That is obviously going to involve a degree of Q&A, at least at the beginning, in order that we establish exactly what we are talking about here.

What's wrong with that? that's how a lot of psychics will work, if I listed another example no doubt youd find something wrong with that too lol, no offence.

Interesting. So you have a site for exposing frauds, and yet you believe that the use of cold reading is a forgiveable tool? No offence taken this time but I am getting a little concerned / peeved about the number of assumptions you make about me.

Also, if I did find something wrong, would you ignore that, or would you be willing to admit that something was wrong?

They're a natural ability within all of us, some use it on a different level to others, on a spiritual level for example, and the example I gave has nothing to do with instinct or suspicion, at least from a medium or psychics point of view, it's something we actualy sense, not so much a hunch so to speak.

... which is the same definition as having an 'instinct' or 'suspicion'. How do you tell the difference? What steps did you take to identify if the 'sense' you had about this was actually correct? It seems to me that you just went with your gut feeling, and acted on it without confirming if the information was valid.

I trust her and know that shes not the hacker, as I said above is everyone out to get me?

I didn't suggest she was the hacker, if you'd like to re-read my comments. I asked if you took any steps to verify that the information she gave you about another member was correct. I added a good wish for you that your trust in your friend is well-placed, as it seems you are happy to take information at face value, and ignore that even the best people can be: fooled / mistaken / acting in their own interest.

I don't think I indicated that anyone was 'out to get' you. Why the drama?

-ES-

30th November 2007, 11:49 AM

That's not how proof works.

No one will disprove your proof, if it really is proof.

What people are able to do is show why your evidence does not constitute proof.

Why oh why is this so hard to explain? people would still say it's not true and find fault even if proof slapped them in the damn face, theyd try to prove proof wasn't proof if it actually was.

vbloke

30th November 2007, 11:49 AM

Like i said, if you proved it there would still be people who would disprove it and scream fraud, even if you proved it to the world. This is my point, you can't simply prove it - people would simply try to disprove it. I can't understand why this is so hard to understand.
It's not hard to understand.

The default position of science is "prove it" - that is, you make a claim, you have to back it up with evidence, otherwise your claim can be discounted.

You have yet to offer anything that resembles proof, so your claims can be discounted. When you do offer proof (or evidence), then it will be looked at objectively and critically (in the sense of looking at it for flaws in your logic, reasoning, etc) and then we can proceed.

Until you offer any proof or evidence, we are 100% justified in the position we take.

chillzero

30th November 2007, 11:52 AM

How on earth can you proove something to someone who immediatly disprooves everything you try to do? It's not as simple as ABC - and please dont say why not, or it is.

Think about that for a moment.

Why on earth would you continue to support or believe something which has - in your own words - been disproven? If you are given proof that something is invalid or incorrect, why wouldn't you accept that proof?

If you can prove something to me, that means by definitiion I cannot dis-prove it. If I can, then you have not proven it, and should in fact consider that it is incorrect.

vbloke

30th November 2007, 11:54 AM

Why oh why is this so hard to explain? people would still say it's not true and find fault even if proof slapped them in the damn face, theyd try to prove proof wasn't proof if it actually was.No, if you could offer 100% proof, there wouldn't be a skeptic on here who would say it isn't true.

The only people who do that are the believers (usually when you prove that their belief is fallacious), they carry on believing regardless of evidence. Skeptics have been changing their world-views for centuries when new evidence comes to light about things.

MischiefMonkey

30th November 2007, 12:06 PM

Why oh why is this so hard to explain? people would still say it's not true and find fault even if proof slapped them in the damn face, theyd try to prove proof wasn't proof if it actually was.

I'm relatively new to UKS, but even I am finding it a little frustrating that people come along and claim to be psychic but neither offer any verifiable evidence nor allow themselves to be tested. We basically have to take your word for it. That is not at all so say you are lying - just that your perception & memory of events may be 'flawed'. Even in 'proper' scientific experimentation there is room for human error, including bias, which is why such research is reviewed.

I note that your self and truthseekerlee offer readings on your forums. To me this would indicate that you can read over the internet. Am i right? In which case would you be willing to do a reading for me as a 'test'.

-ES-

30th November 2007, 12:08 PM

As far as the quote thingy ques it wouldn't let me quote it, said it was to short.

Firstly I apologise for any misunderstandings, It wasn't the intention to make assumptions.

I'm just a little annoyed at having every exmaple I try to give questioned that's all, I wasn't meaning to be rude so apologies if it seemed that way.

I would answer what questions I could to the best of my ability, and there have been a lot of questions so I apologise if i don't get round to answering some, my fingers can only take so much lol.

I am an open minded person but however don't need to question my abilities nor would i ever, however i can perfectly understand why you think I may need to I would however be open to listen to possibilities, as long as its not insulting or degrading.

The site is not for exposing frauds, it's a spiritual site, the system is just there to help give fellow mediums/psychics on the site a peice of mind knowing that they're dealing with someone they can trust. I know youll probably say something against that but most users who visit spiritual sites aren't so skeptical.

I didn't mean my previous statments to sound so dramatic but I was just pointing out that not everyone is out to get me. I have to go out for a while but will return later

Legaleagle

30th November 2007, 12:27 PM

Hi ES

I am finding this whole thread a bit confusing so I would like to ask you the same question I put to Truthseeker, namely this:

How and When, in your opinion, did human beings acquire the characteristic of being able to trascend physical death?

chillzero

30th November 2007, 12:38 PM

As far as the quote thingy ques it wouldn't let me quote it, said it was to short.
You need to put your own words outside the quoted material.

Firstly I apologise for any misunderstandings, It wasn't the intention to make assumptions.

I'm just a little annoyed at having every exmaple I try to give questioned that's all, I wasn't meaning to be rude so apologies if it seemed that way.

I would answer what questions I could to the best of my ability, and there have been a lot of questions so I apologise if i don't get round to answering some, my fingers can only take so much lol.

That's ok - let's move on. I'd love some answers to my questions.

I am an open minded person but however don't need to question my abilities nor would i ever, however i can perfectly understand why you think I may need to I would however be open to listen to possibilities, as long as its not insulting or degrading.

I think not questioning yourself is a major mistake. Everyone should do it - absolutely everyone. Even skeptics question what they believe. I certainly don't intend to insult or degrade you, so I look forward to your further responses to my questions.

The site is not for exposing frauds, it's a spiritual site, the system is just there to help give fellow mediums/psychics on the site a peice of mind knowing that they're dealing with someone they can trust.

Fair enough - but you said you work to expose frauds. How do you go about that? Can you cite an example of a fraud you exposed? You said that you ask them to do readings, and then check them for accuracy - can you post an example reading and assessment (changing names if necessary)?

I know youll probably ...
...and here we go assuming again.

say something against that but most users who visit spiritual sites aren't so skeptical.

I didn't mean my previous statments to sound so dramatic but I was just pointing out that not everyone is out to get me. I have to go out for a while but will return later

I look forward to your return, and also welcome the possibility of a reading done here, for us all to review. I wonder if you know that you could get £0.5million for yourself if you can identify and undertake a successful test for your claimed abilities?

FarSideOfTheMoon

30th November 2007, 01:23 PM

Why oh why is this so hard to explain? people would still say it's not true and find fault even if proof slapped them in the damn face, theyd try to prove proof wasn't proof if it actually was.

I've got pixies living in my garden.

If I could get someone (deluded obviously) to agree with me, then would you accept that as proof?

We are talking evidence, not anecdotes.

Cuddles

30th November 2007, 01:54 PM

I didn't mean my previous statments to sound so dramatic but I was just pointing out that not everyone is out to get me.

No-one is out to get you. All we are asking is that you actually provide evidence instead of just making claims, and preferably that you answer the various questions that have been asked, such as how you can tell the difference between a fraud and a genuine psychic.

-ES-

30th November 2007, 04:08 PM

Hi

I would of course be happy to do a reading on here.

Fair enough - but you said you work to expose frauds. How do you go about that? Can you cite an example of a fraud you exposed? You said that you ask them to do readings, and then check them for accuracy - can you post an example reading and assessment (changing names if necessary)?

The site is new, a relaunch of the hacked one, and the system hasn't been used yet however once it has been used I will be happy to post an example assesment provided the person I was reading for agrees also.

How and When, in your opinion, did human beings acquire the characteristic of being able to trascend physical death?

In my opinion (provided I havent misunderstood the question) the abilities are within us all, as it is a naturall born ability, we all have two bodies, so to speak, the astral one (our spirit) and our physical body, it is well documented that these abilities are natural abilities which lie within all of us, some will never unlock the gift or even be aware that they have it wheras some will, and yes even animals have afterlives, allthough dont ask me to explain how it works with animals because I don't know and dont have any experience with them.

Legaleagle

30th November 2007, 04:31 PM

Hi

How and When, in your opinion, did human beings acquire the characteristic of being able to trascend physical death?

In my opinion (provided I havent misunderstood the question) the abilities are within us all, as it is a naturall born ability, we all have two bodies, so to speak, the astral one (our spirit) and our physical body, it is well documented that these abilities are natural abilities which lie within all of us, some will never unlock the gift or even be aware that they have it wheras some will, and yes even animals have afterlives, allthough dont ask me to explain how it works with animals because I don't know and dont have any experience with them.

Thank you for for your attempt to answer the question ES.

I note that you say that we are all born with an ability. I am not quite sure about what ability you are referring to. This was not really what my question was about anyway and I apologise if it was unclear.

What I am trying to get a handle on is at what point in history do you think we as a species first acquired this characteristic of being able to survive death? As I understand the evolutionists, human biology and consciousness was a gradually evolving process (or are you a creationist?). We wern't always the walking, talking, thinking beings that we are now, so at what point did we acquire this characteristic of being able to survive our physical death?

I am also interested in how you think we acquired such an ability and what it's purpose is, although I would settle for an answer to the above before proceeding to these questions.

Matt

30th November 2007, 04:40 PM

Fair enough - but you said you work to expose frauds. How do you go about that? Can you cite an example of a fraud you exposed? You said that you ask them to do readings, and then check them for accuracy - can you post an example reading and assessment (changing names if necessary)?

The site is new, a relaunch of the hacked one, and the system hasn't been used yet however once it has been used I will be happy to post an example assesment provided the person I was reading for agrees also.

Just to restate, you said in an earlier post that you weed out frauds on your site. Can you confirm that you have in that past encountered a fraudulent medium and let us know how you detected their fraudulent nature.

I remember reading a report recently about a skeptical investigator who experimented with cold and warm reading techniques to apply for a job with a company offering psychic services. The company claimed to test for only the best psychics. She passed their tests and was offered the job.

The reasons we're interested in your methods in this regard is because we're interested in whether they could be circumvented by the same techniques.

How and When, in your opinion, did human beings acquire the characteristic of being able to trascend physical death?

In my opinion (provided I havent misunderstood the question) the abilities are within us all, as it is a naturall born ability, we all have two bodies, so to speak, the astral one (our spirit) and our physical body, it is well documented that these abilities are natural abilities which lie within all of us, some will never unlock the gift or even be aware that they have it wheras some will, and yes even animals have afterlives, allthough dont ask me to explain how it works with animals because I don't know and dont have any experience with them.

I think that you have misunderstood the question. We as a species evolved from lower primates. Typically such primates are not considered to have an eternal soul though your beliefs are allowed to differ.

At what stage in human evolution did we obtain an eternal soul or is such a soul intrinsic to all life on earth meaning that there are gadzillions of dead bacteria in the afterlife.

MischiefMonkey

30th November 2007, 04:51 PM

I would of course be happy to do a reading on here.

I'm really pleased you are willing to do that:smiley: So many people claim to have abilities then never put them to a test here.

As I previously mentioned, I am happy for you to read for me.

-ES-

30th November 2007, 04:51 PM

Thank you for for your attempt to answer the question ES.

I note that you say that we are all born with an ability. I am not quite sure about what ability you are referring to. This was not really what my question was about anyway and I apologise if it was unclear.

What I am trying to get a handle on is at what point in history do you think we as a species first acquired this characteristic of being able to survive death? As I understand the evolutionists, human biology and consciousness was a gradually evolving process (or are you a creationist?). We wern't always the walking, talking, thinking beings that we are now, so at what point did we acquire this characteristic of being able to survice our physical death?

I am also interested in how you think we acquired such an ability and what it's purpose is, although I would settle for an answer to the above before proceeding to these questions.

The ability i'm reffering to is the psychic abilities, medium abilities.

I do believe we gradually evolved, but if I take you back to a second to the point I made in my previous post about animals having spirits or souls may help answer this a bit. I believe that most living things have spirits, so this I hope would answer your question, as humans, before we evolved into what we are now were animals/mamals and had spirits just like most living things.

Spirits are pure energy, the energy which while alive is inside us, once we die this energy is released into the, astral world, if you like. As for the purpose of us having this astral body there are many purposes, which may be different from person to person. This was a bit trickier to answer but I answered the question best I could and I hope it was clear enough for you.

ES

-ES-

30th November 2007, 04:53 PM

I'm really pleased you are willing to do that:smiley: So many people claim to have abilities then never put them to a test here.

As I previously mentioned, I am happy for you to read for me.

Would a Tarot Reading be ok for you?

MischiefMonkey

30th November 2007, 05:10 PM

Would a Tarot Reading be ok for you?

That would be fine:smiley:

FarSideOfTheMoon

30th November 2007, 05:11 PM

[/color]

I remember reading a report recently about a skeptical investigator who experimented with cold and warm reading techniques to apply for a job with a company offering psychic services. The company claimed to test for only the best psychics. She passed their tests and was offered the job.

The companies I've read about, I don't think they would need to be fooled before putting you on the lines. They only cared if you could talk enough to keep the client on the phone for the maximum 10 minutes.

Yours must have been a more ethical company!

Matt

30th November 2007, 05:12 PM

The ability i'm reffering to is the psychic abilities, medium abilities.

I do believe we gradually evolved, but if I take you back to a second to the point I made in my previous post about animals having spirits or souls may help answer this a bit. I believe that most living things have spirits, so this I hope would answer your question, as humans, before we evolved into what we are now were animals/mamals and had spirits just like most living things.

Spirits are pure energy, the energy which while alive is inside us, once we die this energy is released into the, astral world, if you like. As for the purpose of us having this astral body there are many purposes, which may be different from person to person. This was a bit trickier to answer but I answered the question best I could and I hope it was clear enough for you.

ES

Thank you for your answer. As a psychic or medium can you detect this soul?

If so would a trip round the zoo help us to determine with which other forms of life we share this property?

e.g. All Placental Mammals but not Marsupials, Birds or Reptiles; Mammals, Birds and Reptiles but not Amphibians or Fish.

Perhps we'd even find the soul to have "evolved" mutiple times or perhaps it's related to encephalation quotient - more inteligent animals have souls but not less inteligent.

I would find this an interesting exercise.

Legaleagle

30th November 2007, 05:26 PM

The ability i'm reffering to is the psychic abilities, medium abilities.

I do believe we gradually evolved, but if I take you back to a second to the point I made in my previous post about animals having spirits or souls may help answer this a bit. I believe that most living things have spirits, so this I hope would answer your question, as humans, before we evolved into what we are now were animals/mamals and had spirits just like most living things.

OK, that helps me a bit. If I read you correctly all living organisms have a spirit or soul. So, if we go right back to the beginning of life on earth, when the correct jumble of chemicals slopped together to create the first living organism, did this thing, whatever it was, have a soul at the point it first started to exist? (apologies to any scientists out there, I am probably butchering this subject badly).

If it did acquire this characteristic at this point how and why do you think it did so?

Spirits are pure energy, the energy which while alive is inside us, once we die this energy is released into the, astral world, if you like. As for the purpose of us having this astral body there are many purposes, which may be different from person to person. This was a bit trickier to answer but I answered the question best I could and I hope it was clear enough for you.

ES
Well it should be demonstrable by science if energy escapes from the human body on the point of death this energy transfer should be measurable. Have you any information on experiments of that type?

-ES-

30th November 2007, 05:28 PM

Thank you for your answer. As a psychic or medium can you detect this soul?

If so would a trip round the zoo help us to determine with which other forms of life we share this property?

e.g. All Placental Mammals but not Marsupials, Birds or Reptiles; Mammals, Birds and Reptiles but not Amphibians or Fish.

Perhps we'd even find the soul to have "evolved" mutiple times or perhaps it's related to encephalation quotient - more inteligent animals have souls but not less inteligent.

I would find this an interesting exercise.

Unfortunately I have no idea if smaller creatures like flies have spirits but I have always wondered, mediums only really need only detect spirits which have moved onto the spirit world, we all know people have spirits (talking from a mediums point of view) so therfore dont go around checking everyone to make sure they have one lol. But it is certainly something interesting to note down :p

MischiefMonkey

30th November 2007, 05:29 PM

The ability i'm reffering to is the psychic abilities, medium abilities.

I do believe we gradually evolved, but if I take you back to a second to the point I made in my previous post about animals having spirits or souls may help answer this a bit. I believe that most living things have spirits, so this I hope would answer your question, as humans, before we evolved into what we are now were animals/mamals and had spirits just like most living things.

Spirits are pure energy, the energy which while alive is inside us, once we die this energy is released into the, astral world, if you like. As for the purpose of us having this astral body there are many purposes, which may be different from person to person. This was a bit trickier to answer but I answered the question best I could and I hope it was clear enough for you.

ES

I understand that view - it is one I held myself. My issues with it are:

There is no evidence for it. If there is an energy release at the time of death (other than heat given off as the body cools) it should be measurable. If this energy interacts with mediums, that should be measurable.

Along with the belief that our energy enters the 'astral world' is usually the belief that our conscienceness lives on and we retain our personality. There is no plausible mechanism for this. Energy is just energy. It has no conscienceness.

Other more eloquent members could probably put it better, more intelligent members could explain the science better. But I hope you understand what I am saying.

-ES-

30th November 2007, 05:36 PM

OK, that helps me a bit. If I read you correctly all living organisms have a spirit or soul. So, if we go right back to the beginning of life on earth, when the correct jumble of chemicals slopped together to create the first living organism, did this thing, whatever it was, have a soul at the point it first started to exist? (apologies to any scientists out there, I am probably butchering this subject badly).

If it did acquire this characteristic at this point how and why do you think it did so?

Well it should be demonstrable by science if energy escapes from the human body on the point of death this energy transfer should be measurable. Have you any information on experiments of that type?

I think I can can safely say that micro-organisms don't have spirits, once the brain, (not just human brains but animal ones too) developed enough any creature with a brain has a spirit. So in answer to your question, as soon as the brain was evolved enough humans and animals alike have had spirits.

As for how i'm not sure of the answer to that as of yet, I just accept the fact that we do, but I would certainly be interested to find out 'how'.

FarSideOfTheMoon

30th November 2007, 05:39 PM

I think I can can safely say that micro-organisms don't have spirits, once the brain, (not just human brains but animal ones too) developed enough any creature with a brain has a spirit. So in answer to your question, as soon as the brain was evolved enough humans and animals alike have had spirits.

As for how i'm not sure of the answer to that as of yet, I just accept the fact that we do, but I would certainly be interested to find out 'how'.

Do you need a soul to have a spirit?

Some would suggest the soul appears at point of conception. You don't really have a brain then, to put it mildly.

-ES-

30th November 2007, 05:43 PM

Matt

30th November 2007, 05:45 PM

I understand that view - it is one I held myself. My issues with it are:

There is no evidence for it. If there is an energy release at the time of death (other than heat given off as the body cools) it should be measurable. If this energy interacts with mediums, that should be measurable.

Along with the belief that our energy enters the 'astral world' is usually the belief that our conscienceness lives on and we retain our personality. There is no plausible mechanism for this. Energy is just energy. It has no conscienceness.

Other more eloquent members could probably put it better, more intelligent members could explain the science better. But I hope you understand what I am saying.

Obviously when believers speak of spirit energy they mean something different from what physicists mean by energy. Otherwise the physicists would be able to measure the energy being used to create a new soul when new life is created and thus detect evidence for the soul.

Some are unwise enough to invoke the conservation of energy as evidence for eternal life. However were souls measured in joules then we'd have an interesting prediction that one day all of the universe's energy would not end up as heat in the entropic death of the universe, but instead at least some would be preserved as as eternal souls in the afterlife.

It is possible that in some parallel plane of existance a mirror of our conciousness is somehow imprinted somewhere in such a way as to not be further dependent on our continued existence. It is further possible that the information transfer is not unidirectional allowing for some disembodied imprint of a human conciousness to comunicare back to the world of the living. After all if instesd of a parallel plane of existance we say literature the evidence of an effect partially similar to this is clearly along with details of the mechanism by which it happens.

In both cases it is not energy that is transferred it is patterns, forms, information.

As a physicist by training I do get frustrated by the missuse of a technical term.

-ES-

30th November 2007, 05:46 PM

Do you need a soul to have a spirit?

Some would suggest the soul appears at point of conception. You don't really have a brain then, to put it mildly.

To me the soul and ones spirit are both the same thing

-ES-

30th November 2007, 06:03 PM

Obviously when believers speak of spirit energy they mean something different from what physicists mean by energy. Otherwise the physicists would be able to measure the energy being used to create a new soul when new life is created and thus detect evidence for the soul.

Some are unwise enough to invoke the conservation of energy as evidence for eternal life. However were souls measured in joules then we'd have an interesting prediction that one day all of the universe's energy would not end up as heat in the entropic death of the universe, but instead at least some would be preserved as as eternal souls in the afterlife.

It is possible that in some parallel plane of existance a mirror of our conciousness is somehow imprinted somewhere in such a way as to not be further dependent on our continued existence. It is further possible that the information transfer is not unidirectional allowing for some disembodied imprint of a human conciousness to comunicare back to the world of the living. After all if instesd of a parallel plane of existance we say literature the evidence of an effect partially similar to this is clearly along with details of the mechanism by which it happens.

In both cases it is not energy that is transferred it is patterns, forms, information.

As a physicist by training I do get frustrated by the missuse of a technical term.

I understand where your coming from, when a psychic/medium refers to energy we mean 'spirit energy', it's just an easier term for us to use.

MischiefMonkey

30th November 2007, 06:08 PM

Hi

I will get round to your reading soon, perhaps later this evening after dinner and everything is over with if that would suit you?

That would be fine. Thanks:smiley:

I understand perfectly what your saying, spirit energy is undectetable to most devices which I know of at present, there are certain devices which can detect coldspots, temprature changes and suchlike but none at present, to my knowledge at least, which can detect spirit enegry. The best device for this is our own natural abilities, at least until someone invents a ghost detector lol.I would say that our own 'natural abilities' are totally subjective and therefore not a very good device at all. Our senses are fallible and the interpretation of what information they relay to us depends on many physical and psychological factors.

It would be a fascinating area to explore though if there would be any willing subjects for scientists to try it on and I would most certainly be interested to find out the results.It would certainly be interesting. But you are 'admitting' that there is no evidence and by inference your abilities are faith/belief. While I am sure you are sincere in your belief, that does not mean there aren't other non-paranormal explanation. Perhaps you are very perceptive and interact very well with people which allows you to pick up on nuances of body language and elicit information from a person without realising it. You certainly have a pleasant manner and I have probably 'given away' far more than I should prior to a reading;D I am sure a perceptive skeptic could also tell a lot about me from my posting here.

Matt - thanks. Much better put than I could and an interesting expansion with the parallel planes. :smiley:

-ES-

30th November 2007, 06:17 PM

That would be fine. Thanks:smiley:

I would say that our own 'natural abilities' are totally subjective and therefore not a very good device at all. Our senses are fallible and the interpretation of what information they relay to us depends on many physical and psychological factors.

It would certainly be interesting. But you are 'admitting' that there is no evidence and by inference your abilities are faith/belief. While I am sure you are sincere in your belief, that does not mean there aren't other non-paranormal explanation. Perhaps you are very perceptive and interact very well with people which allows you to pick up on nuances of body language and elicit information from a person without realising it. You certainly have a pleasant manner and I have probably 'given away' far more than I should prior to a reading;D I am sure a perceptive skeptic could also tell a lot about me from my posting here.

Matt - thanks. Much better put than I could and an interesting expansion with the parallel planes. :smiley:

I admit that at present there is no scientific means of proving my abilities and yes from time to time even the best psychics/mediums get things wrong, information can often be misintepreted, due to the way we interpret what we receive, especially with names, you may notice some psychics get a name completely wrong but get the sound right, for a simple example, a psychic may sense, Barry when the name is actually Harry.

I'm also glad you aprove of my manner :p

bobdezon

30th November 2007, 07:46 PM

I admit that at present there is no scientific means of proving my abilities and yes from time to time even the best psychics/mediums get things wrong, information can often be misintepreted, due to the way we interpret what we receive, especially with names, you may notice some psychics get a name completely wrong but get the sound right, for a simple example, a psychic may sense, Barry when the name is actually Harry.

I'm also glad you aprove of my manner :p

sweet jeebus ::)

Yes your psychic abilities can be tested by current science. The JREF and other organisations have ample measures to ensure a fair test.

Every psychic and medium gets things wrong. So do normal people. Psychics and mediums something give correct information, so do normal people. How exactly are they different?

Information can indeed be misinterpreted, but to be fair, so can the answers.

some psychics who get a name wrong do so because they are guessing. It is called "shotgunning" rapid unidirection waves of multiple names starting with every common letter of the alphabet. Its all part of the cold reading process.

If a psychic senses barry, and the name is harry then they are incorrect, not almost right.

If a psychic hears barry but says harry, then he is almost correct because his ears are imparied.

-ES-

30th November 2007, 08:01 PM

Hi Mischeif here is your reading. I hope it's ok for you and hope you wont hold me to it if I get anything wrong lol.

--------------------------------------------------------

I feel you've recently come out of a rough time, i feel drawn to saying financially but i'm not 100% certain. things have significantly improved over the past few weeks and your thinking about what your next steps are. Things are certainly looking up for you and the worst is certainly behind.

I feel your able to concentrate now on what you truly want, whereas before i feel there was a lot of restriction, probably due to financial constraints if it's financial problems :) I feel you've not had much time with your family and setting some time aside for them would be very beneficial for you or even some time of with close friends. I feel you've been overworking yourself as of late and slowing down a little would be a good idea.

Let others help you if they want to, I feel sometimes you're rather shy so to speak, of asking for help, it may seem awkward to you but nobody will mind if you ask them for help.

Over the coming couple of weeks spend some time thinking about how best to proceed with your situation, you don't want to rush headlong into something and then find there was a better way afterwards.

You need to simplify things in your life as they are still to complicated for you, you can start by setting higher standards for yourself as I don't feel your giving yourself the credit you deserve, don't put yourself down. I feel within the next couple of weeks will be a good time for you to get stuck in and do something you've always wanted to do, pay attention to detail as I feel this will help you in whatever it is you want to do, perhaps a career change?

MischiefMonkey

30th November 2007, 08:15 PM

Thanks for doing that -ES-:smiley:

I've got a quick job to do then I'll have a proper read & give you my response:smiley:

Julia

30th November 2007, 09:20 PM

Death - can we all honestly say that once we die that that's it, we're brown bread, worm food....for our physical bodies yes, but not for our souls. I never understand why skeptics find it so difficult in to believe there is life after physical death, I mean, we all believe that the planets are in space, we believe that we are all real, we all believe in what we can see and touch on our own planet. Just because science doesn't have the answer yet, does not mean it's non-existent.

Even if it was scientifically proved, would everyone believe it??? For some reason, I don't think so lol. Although I suppose it depends on what facts that base their evidence on.

But we don't believe that the planets are in space. We don't believe we are real. Overwhelming physical evidence tells us that this is so - the reality of ourselves and the planets are facts. There is no remotely convincing evidence for the existence of the soul, which is why people have to believe - or not believe - in its existence.

As for scientific evidence of the soul's existence, do you honestly believe that not everyone would accept it? It would be the most dramatic, life-changing, mind-boggling discovery in the history of mankind! Scientists would have succeeded in doing something that priests, oracles, shamen and other metaphysical specialists - including mediums - have conspicuously failed to do despite thousands of years of effort.

bobdezon

30th November 2007, 09:48 PM

FarSideOfTheMoon

30th November 2007, 09:49 PM

This is your serious reply?

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

I cannot believe you seriously believe you have a mediumistic ability. There is nothing personal or revealing in that reading. It could apply to 99% of the population. How is this evidence of your ability? Its like the crap you read in a newspaper horoscope.

I thought it was my reading 8)

bobdezon

30th November 2007, 09:51 PM

I thought it was my reading 8)

To be honest, judging by the content, its everyones isnt it? ::)

bindeweede

30th November 2007, 09:54 PM

It will be interesting reading Mischief's response.

bobdezon

30th November 2007, 09:56 PM

cant wait myself, should be good.

-ES-

30th November 2007, 10:01 PM

Fiona

30th November 2007, 10:06 PM

I agree. It is mischief's reading and we should wait for her comment

bobdezon

30th November 2007, 10:19 PM

Excuse me but it's not your reading to comment on, couldnt you at least wait untill Mischief replies? You were all screaming for me to give some evidence so thats what i did, and if your not happy about it then tough. I'm sorry for being so blunt but is there really need to be so rude? like i said at least wait till Mischief comments on the damn thing.

I could, but I suffer from "premature repostulation". Although you will still have his reply, I would hesitate to call that "evidence" of any description, if that is the best you can do, then I think the JREF prize will be safe for a while yet. Have you considered since my last post to you the forer effect and how it applies here? can you not see what you claim is a magical ability is infact a well understood cognative process and not at all magical?

Will you continue to claim you have a magical ability despite having been shown evidence to the contrary? If so will you understand why sceptics would refer to you as deluded?

MischiefMonkey

30th November 2007, 11:16 PM

Sorry for taking so long!!!

I'll post my reply in a minute. But first I want to say, this is the first time I've tried to critically appraise a reading. I've tried to be as objective as I can. I do feel a little under pressure.

I think -ES- deserves some credit for posting the reading. Its more than a lot of 'psychic' forum members have.

And Bob - I'm a girl!!!

Bare with me a minute while I check my formatting.

MischiefMonkey

30th November 2007, 11:21 PM

Hi Mischeif here is your reading. I hope it's ok for you and hope you wont hold me to it if I get anything wrong lol.

Again, thanks:smiley: I hope you won't hold it against me that I've pointed out where you have got it wrong.O0

My first impression is that it is very vague. There is nothing that pertains specifically to me. Have you heard of Barnum Statements? (http://skepdic.com/barnum.html) or the Foyer Effect (http://skepdic.com/forer.html)

To measure ‘hits’ and ‘misses’ I’ve broken the reading down into bullet points.

I feel you've recently come out of a rough time Hit/Miss. Pretty generic. A bereavement that is mentioned on this board here (http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=23632&postcount=8), a house sale, pain the butt tenants, but nothing I’d consider ‘rough’, though someone else could go through the same experiences and they might consider it a rough time.
I feel drawn to saying financially but i'm not 100% certain. Miss and hedging.
Things have significantly improved over the past few weeks Hit/Miss – things have ‘improved’ but not ‘significantly’ as they weren’t that bad to begin with. And some other issues have arisen.
You’re thinking about what your next steps are. Hit, but very, very generic.
Things are certainly looking up for you and the worst is certainly behind Can’t rate Hit or Miss as it is too generic. And I could get run over by a bus tomorrow.
I feel your able to concentrate now on what you truly want, whereas before i feel there was a lot of restriction, probably due to financial constraints if it's financial problems. Miss. Nothing that was going on prevented me from concentrating on what I ‘truly’ want. The restrictions that stop me are still there. And hedging on the ‘financial’
I feel you've not had much time with your family Miss. Totally.
Setting some time aside for them would be very beneficial for you or even some time of with close friends. True for everyone except hermits. Even then….
I feel you've been overworking yourself as of late and slowing down a little would be a good ideaMiss. I slowed down years ago.
Let others help you if they want toLol. Miss. Ask my Hubby & parents.
I feel sometimes you're rather shy so to speak of asking for help, it may seem awkward to you but nobody will mind if you ask them for help. Miss
Over the coming couple of weeks spend some time thinking about how best to proceed with your situation Which situation? Very generic – would fit anyone.
You don't want to rush headlong into something and then find there was a better way afterwards Very generic – would fit anyone
You need to simplify things in your life as they are still to complicated for youMiss
You can start by setting higher standards for yourself Cheeky!! But hit for lots of people.
I don't feel your giving yourself the credit you deserveHit/Miss. I do where I am confident of my abilities, less so when doing something unfamiliar/new. Like a lot of people.
Don't put yourself down Very good advice – for every one. But I like to think my self-depreciation is girlish and attractive.
I feel within the next couple of weeks will be a good time for you to get stuck in and do something you've always wanted to do Again, very generic. Is the next couple of weeks a good time for me to visit Giza, learn to scuba dive or enter my pup in a dog show?
Pay attention to detail as I feel this will help you in whatever it is you want to do Again very generic – would apply to anyone.
Perhaps a career change? Hedging/Miss. I like my job.

A few years ago, when I believed, I would probably have fitted all of that into my life somehow. The ‘rough’ time would have been the loss of my Uncle and the minor stresses. The ‘financial’ feeling would have related to the money I made even though the implication was financial worries. And so on.

seren

30th November 2007, 11:22 PM

I think -ES- deserves some credit for posting the reading. Its more than a lot of 'psychic' forum members have.

Yes, you're right, MM. ES thankyou for posting your reading. Most people don't do so. It's appreciated.

-ES-

30th November 2007, 11:27 PM

I dont see why i should bother replying to you if you wont even wait for Mischiefs reply, psychics deal with a lot of issues which are the same every day. Unless you can be more civil and courtious im not going to bother with you, you asked me to provide evidence and i have given a reading now will you please stop nit picking and wait for a damn response, for the second time

bindeweede

30th November 2007, 11:40 PM

Legaleagle

30th November 2007, 11:50 PM

-ES-

30th November 2007, 11:51 PM

Legaleagle

30th November 2007, 11:56 PM

I think I can can safely say that micro-organisms don't have spirits, once the brain, (not just human brains but animal ones too) developed enough any creature with a brain has a spirit. So in answer to your question, as soon as the brain was evolved enough humans and animals alike have had spirits.

As for how i'm not sure of the answer to that as of yet, I just accept the fact that we do, but I would certainly be interested to find out 'how'.

OK, so a soul/spirit develops once an animal reaches a certain inteligence quotient?

By what process does the animal acquire the soul at this point, when it becomes aware of it's own existence, or are there outside processes involed?

MischiefMonkey

1st December 2007, 12:02 AM

Hi

thankyou both for your replies, i always appreiciate feedback on readings. I also apologise for my previous post as it may have seemed out of sync, it wasnt aimed at you.

I have noticed that when reading for skeptics im much more likely to get things wrong and ill hold my hands up and admit that i didnt do well and got most things wrong so id like to kindly ask everyone not to hold it against me. Perhaps my temper got the better of me earlier with the others before you posted feedback i was only annoyed that they didnt wait for your response

I certainly wouldn't hold your reading against you. But I would ask that you read the links I (and others) have provided about the Foyer and Barnum effects. I'd be interested in how you think your reading for me compares:smiley:

As for your 'temper', I can understand and to be fair, your post was mild compared to some!! On the other hand someone willing to post a reading here is a rarety so I can understand the "premature repostulation"O0

bobdezon

1st December 2007, 12:20 AM

I have noticed that when reading for skeptics im much more likely to get things wrong and ill hold my hands up and admit that i didnt do well and got most things wrong so id like to kindly ask everyone not to hold it against me.

Do you think that sceptics are causing your high failure rate because we have some type of sceptical shield which hinders your readings? or would it be that we recognise the actual proceedures involved in this and it simply isnt magical at all?

We dont hold it against you that you got them wrong, why would we? It doesnt help us to hold an opinion like that. You are one of the few that actually tried to prove any of your claims. For that you are to be commended. Has this reading and its subsequent replies changed your mind in anyway concerning your "ability"?

bindeweede

1st December 2007, 12:25 AM

bobdezon

1st December 2007, 12:28 AM

gotta give people the benefit of the doubt mate, I mean we can all get an epiphany right? O0

MischiefMonkey

1st December 2007, 12:58 AM

Mischief

I'd like to thank you for your breakdown of ES's reading. You obviously spent a fair bit of time preparing your response. I find it particularly interesting as you say you were once a believer.

Thanks.

I wasn't just a believer, I was a medium. Or so I thought.

The long story I may write up one day - shouldn't be difficult I kept extensive journals.

The short story is:

I had issues from my childhood. In my mid teens I had a very good friend, who had her own issues, who helped me through some late-teen self-destructive behaviour. We had a major falling out (mid 20's) but by 30 we'd made up. By which point she was heavily into the psychic/spiritual side of things. I was searching for answers and dabbling in Wicca. I tried to do readings and to my surprise I was 'good' at it. I was never a 'fraud'. I really believed I was getting messages from the other side. My life wasn't good and a happy afterlife was very attractive. Having a 'special gift' was very attractive. Having admiration from people I respected and strangers was very attractive.

I then had hypnotherapy in an attempt to quit smoking. The hypnotherapy tipped me into a terrible, severe clinical depression. Unless John J gives explicit permission I won't name & shame the hypnotherapist, much as I'd like to. It was around this point I noticed some unpleasantness in my best friend. She had a tendency to end friendships if any aspect of her life was challenged. I 'challenged' her on this and I was discarded. There was also some resentment from other mediums that I didn't charge for readings. I am not 'loaded' but I do OK. I had no need to charge. Others I knew either treated it as a business or were on the social so to have someone giving free readings was a bit frowned on. This unpleasentness from 'spiritual' people, and a lovely consultant psychiatrist, made me question my beliefs. And they didn't stand up to questioning. Six+ years on, happy, contented, sane and sceptic:smiley:

OK, not such a short story;D

Julia

1st December 2007, 01:00 AM

-ES-, I'm puzzled by your equation of the soul with consciousness. Are you suggesting that, at some time in our remote proto-human past, a couple of soulless hominids mated and produced the first being destined to have an afterlife? Because surely it's a case of all or nothing at all - you can no more have a fraction of a soul than you can be slightly pregnant or a wee bit dead. And I have to say that the idea of an afterlife without animals doesn't appeal to me in the least!

Also, the consciousness=soul theory would mean that embryos who miscarried or were aborted at an early stage in their development wouldn't have souls. Neither would people suffering from severe mental handicaps, brain damage or Alzheimers disease.

No, I'm afraid you'll have to come up with some convincing evidence before you make any converts here. All I've seen so far are anecdotes and wishful thinking.

bindeweede

1st December 2007, 01:15 AM

MischiefMonkey

1st December 2007, 01:40 AM

Mischief

Just read your "short" story. Thank you for posting that. I think Chillzero will be interested to read that too.

It is all very interesting to me. Please do not take this as sexist, but do you think females are more prone to being convinced by the spiritual/paranormal ideas than males? Not that it really matters, I suppose.

ES has been courageous in posting his - well I've assumed he's a him (?) - reading here. But the TV psychics tend to be male, so perhaps it is not a very sensible question. ?

From my own observation I can't say you are sexist. The vast majority were women. Exclusively female development circles, 95+% spiritual churches, 95% development retreats. But when a man was involved he seemed to either be a 'svengali' type or became the object of many a desire. Within my close circle there was a male shamen. There was some obvious female fawning (until you got to know him - bless) Didn't hurt that he was blonde and built with his own house & car & a regular income. Another I remember was very skinny and a bit wet. His mother dragged him to a spiritual retreat. Sweet lad, but vulnerable.

Others were a bit more 'sinister'. At the risk of being sexist myself, most of the men were either completely fugged up(but honestly believing) or on a power trip.

bindeweede

1st December 2007, 01:48 AM

Mischief,

I hope you don't mind me saying this - well I don't think you will - but it doesn't sound like a world I really want to get in to. "Barking".

And the ladies might, as you suggest, go for this.....

Didn't hurt that he was blonde and built with his own house & car & a regular income.

bobdezon

1st December 2007, 03:58 AM

I had issues from my childhood. In my mid teens I had a very good friend, who had her own issues, who helped me through some late-teen self-destructive behaviour. We had a major falling out (mid 20's) but by 30 we'd made up. By which point she was heavily into the psychic/spiritual side of things. I was searching for answers and dabbling in Wicca. I tried to do readings and to my surprise I was 'good' at it. I was never a 'fraud'. I really believed I was getting messages from the other side. My life wasn't good and a happy afterlife was very attractive. Having a 'special gift' was very attractive. Having admiration from people I respected and strangers was very attractive.

I then had hypnotherapy in an attempt to quit smoking. The hypnotherapy tipped me into a terrible, severe clinical depression. Unless John J gives explicit permission I won't name & shame the hypnotherapist, much as I'd like to. It was around this point I noticed some unpleasantness in my best friend. She had a tendency to end friendships if any aspect of her life was challenged. I 'challenged' her on this and I was discarded. There was also some resentment from other mediums that I didn't charge for readings. I am not 'loaded' but I do OK. I had no need to charge. Others I knew either treated it as a business or were on the social so to have someone giving free readings was a bit frowned on. This unpleasentness from 'spiritual' people, and a lovely consultant psychiatrist, made me question my beliefs. And they didn't stand up to questioning. Six+ years on, happy, contented, sane and sceptic:smiley:

OK, not such a short story;D

That was badass, If that was a movie, Id pay to see that. Quick question though. Looking back with hindsight, how would you compare your believer self, with the new sceptical self? Which version do you think had the most ordered thoughts? Which version felt better to "be". It just interests me.

InForAPennyInForApound

1st December 2007, 05:51 AM

Hi ES,

There is something different about you to the others who have come and gone, were very abusive towards us here at UKS. Yet you persevered and replied to each one of us Skeptics in a decent manner. I commend you on your behaviour and wish to thank you for putting yourself at open risk of critism doing a reading for MischiefMonkey on here. Yes, I agree with MischiefMonkey that your reading was vague, and lots of misses, however you had the courage to stay put and not disappear into the woods like the rest.

However I remain the ever skeptic! ::)
Penny

dee

1st December 2007, 09:55 AM

FarSideOfTheMoon

1st December 2007, 09:56 AM

Mischief

Just read your "short" story. Thank you for posting that. I think Chillzero will be interested to read that too.

It is all very interesting to me. Please do not take this as sexist, but do you think females are more prone to being convinced by the spiritual/paranormal ideas than males? Not that it really matters, I suppose.

ES has been courageous in posting his - well I've assumed he's a him (?) - reading here. But the TV psychics tend to be male, so perhaps it is not a very sensible question. ?

Hmmm. Been a long day.

Yes, the TV psychics are male, but a large proportion of them are homosexual. Not that that has anything to do with anything, but they do seem to have the knack of engaging women in their charade as opposed to men. I mean have you ever seen the audience at any of those shows on Living TV? There's usually a token man there who is thinking, why did I let myself get dragged along to this crap >:-). The rest will be women.

Seen this discussed elsewhere on other forums, so don't want to derail this thread too much.

-ES-

1st December 2007, 12:25 PM

Hi

sorry for taking so long to reply, I will get round to replying to as many of your questions as I can at somepoint today, I may have to go out, yet again so if i'm not back till later on you know why :)

Thanks for all your commendations also, they are certainly appreciated.

chillzero

1st December 2007, 12:44 PM

I have noticed that when reading for skeptics im much more likely to get things wrong

There is possibly one single very good reason for this, and it relates back to the previous points I made to you about the two people you have mentioned so far as having impacted your life.
Believers are more likely to miss or forgive errors, or fill in details relating to the information and count it as a hit. They can be a little lost in their own mystification.

However, I look forward to you giving us an example of weeding out a fradulant medium - perhaps you can use one from the previous site, and change the names accordingly?

Mischief

Just read your "short" story. Thank you for posting that. I think Chillzero will be interested to read that too.

How did you guess? ^-^

Mischief - please drop in at the thread 'Psychic Mentality' and help me fill in some more profiles.

It is all very interesting to me. Please do not take this as sexist, but do you think females are more prone to being convinced by the spiritual/paranormal ideas than males? Not that it really matters, I suppose.

In the circles I was in there seemed to be more men than women, but the women were spoken about as if they were revered more, with a 'natural' ability that men had to work harder at... however, the figure heads chosen were always men. I think it's a historic thing, in that women were at home working with food and herbs, and so on, so they learned about what makes you ill and what makes you better. They made the clothes, etc, so learned about inserting symbols in clothes and pottery. Men were out hunting, or growing crops, so they learned to read the weather, and signs from animals of impending storms, etc. The fact that women give comfort and sustinence has placed them on the 'softer' side of wisdom, if you get my meaning.

From my own observation I can't say you are sexist. The vast majority were women. Exclusively female development circles, 95+% spiritual churches, 95% development retreats. But when a man was involved he seemed to either be a 'svengali' type or became the object of many a desire. Within my close circle there was a male shamen. There was some obvious female fawning (until you got to know him - bless) Didn't hurt that he was blonde and built with his own house & car & a regular income. Another I remember was very skinny and a bit wet. His mother dragged him to a spiritual retreat. Sweet lad, but vulnerable.

Others were a bit more 'sinister'. At the risk of being sexist myself, most of the men were either completely fugged up(but honestly believing) or on a power trip.

I agree with the power trip thing, and have mentioned my ex husband a few times. He definitely liked to be in control, and was very much looked up to as a charismatic type that people responded to very warmly from the first moment they met him. I don't think I have ever known anyone to have taken an instant dislike to him, or even be ambivilant - they always warm to him immediately. This made him suitable to be a figurehead for attracting more people to the business that we were all in.

Please - tell us more in the Psychic Mentality thread about the various personalities. I have been meaning to get back to that thread myself for a while.

-ES-

1st December 2007, 12:49 PM

Do you think that sceptics are causing your high failure rate because we have some type of sceptical shield which hinders your readings? or would it be that we recognise the actual proceedures involved in this and it simply isnt magical at all?

We dont hold it against you that you got them wrong, why would we? It doesnt help us to hold an opinion like that. You are one of the few that actually tried to prove any of your claims. For that you are to be commended. Has this reading and its subsequent replies changed your mind in anyway concerning your "ability"?

Firstly I would like to say that I have always found it harder to read for skeptics, believers are easier to read for as they are more 'open' to receiving whatever the information may be, if you know what i mean, without meaning to cause insult to you of course. Whereas skeptics aren't always so open so to speak and their doubts about receiving the information may well be enough to block the psychic or medium from getting the information so to speak, to my knowledge this is actually well documented, it shouldnt take to much digging to find this info. Not that i'm using it as an excuse of course but i'm just putting it forward as a possible explination.

This reading hasn't changed my mind concerning my ability at all, only given me more experience with reading for skeptics and taught me that it's something I can't do so well lol

Fiona

1st December 2007, 02:21 PM

Firstly I would like to say that I have always found it harder to read for skeptics, believers are easier to read for as they are more 'open' to receiving whatever the information may be, if you know what i mean, without meaning to cause insult to you of course.

Whereas skeptics aren't always so open so to speak and their doubts about receiving the information may well be enough to block the psychic or medium from getting the information so to speak...[snip].... but i'm just putting it forward as a possible explination.
(my bold)

I am a little confused. I am sorry if you have already explained this ES but if I read this right the information comes from the sitter? You are not claiming it comes from an external entity?

If that is correct then can you clarify the problem as you see it. Do you think that you find it harder to get the information from a sceptic sitter because of their mind set? Or is it that you get the information as usual but they do not recognise/accept it because of the mindset?

As a number of people have said, it is true that sceptics are not "open" to filling in the gaps and making connections which are not there - far from being insulting I would venture to say this is a source of some pride to the average sceptic - certainly I see it as a positive thing.

-ES-

1st December 2007, 03:18 PM

(my bold)

I am a little confused. I am sorry if you have already explained this ES but if I read this right the information comes from the sitter? You are not claiming it comes from an external entity?

If that is correct then can you clarify the problem as you see it. Do you think that you find it harder to get the information from a sceptic sitter because of their mind set? Or is it that you get the information as usual but they do not recognise/accept it because of the mindset?

As a number of people have said, it is true that sceptics are not "open" to filling in the gaps and making connections which are not there - far from being insulting I would venture to say this is a source of some pride to the average sceptic - certainly I see it as a positive thing.

Hi

Yes the information comes from the sitter but it also comes from spirit sometimes too. It could also be a combination of it being their mind set and because they didnt recognise or accept it due to their mindset, in a lot of cases it will be a combination of both, as a believer would try to think of what it would mean to them, wheras a skeptic would see it as 'they got it wrong' and look no further so to speak, without meaning insult to any of you of course.

In this case however it could be because I found it harder due to the mindset, please don't think im using this as an excuse however, i'm happy to admit I simply got it wrong.

-ES-

1st December 2007, 03:27 PM

ES,

Was that a Tarot reading that you gave this evening?

If so, can you explain to me how the cards are interpreted, does each card have a set meaning, or is it open to the reader to interpret the fall of the cards in whatever way they see fit on the day in question?

Is the tarot deck merely a method of chanelling a spirit guide and if so, why do these spirits guides seem to prefer to be be channeled through the medium of popular post-rennaisance parlour card game that just happens to have been made esoteric hip by the lunatic and deviant Aleister Crowley?

Hi sorry for taking so long to respond to you.

Yes it was a Tarot Reading I did for Mischeif.

Sometimes the card does have a set meaning othertimes it has a different meaning, cryptic if you like allthough it could still be attributed to the card. I rely on my abilities to help interpret the cards, I read them as a storyboard if you like.

There are of course non-psychics who do tarot reading also, and do very well at it but their methods are somewhat different, psychics/mediums rely on their senses & guides to help them interpret the cards wheras non-psychics don't, they rather interpret them as they see fit, for want of a better phrase.

Tart cards arent for channeling spirit guides as such but rather a tool to help focus your psychic senses.

Julia

1st December 2007, 04:04 PM

-ES-

1st December 2007, 04:42 PM

-ES-, congratulations on being such a good sport by providing a reading and not storming off in a huff when it was criticized. But some of us are still waiting to hear about the consciousness=soul thing - do you agree that there must have been a cut-off point between apes without souls and humans with souls?

Hi

Thanks for the up, certainly appreciated :D

I apologise for not getting round to that question yet, I was going to get round to it :)

I cannot say for certain if there is a 'cutoff' point or not as i've never really thought about it much, intellegent animals such as apes, dolphins, birds and so forth I would imagine do have spirits. As for a foetus I cannot say for certain as it's a little different and I have no knowledge about how it works with one.

lara123

1st December 2007, 06:22 PM

Hi ES,im a believer,i give readings sometimes,im open to it all and i was wondering if you would give me a tarot reading,i think this is a good idea to compare the readings you gave to a sceptic,then to a believer and open up a good discussion.

Firstly I would like to say that I have always found it harder to read for skeptics, believers are easier to read for as they are more 'open' to receiving whatever the information may be, if you know what i mean, without meaning to cause insult to you of course. Whereas skeptics aren't always so open so to speak and their doubts about receiving the information may well be enough to block the psychic or medium from getting the information so to speak, to my knowledge this is actually well documented, it shouldnt take to much digging to find this info. Not that i'm using it as an excuse of course but i'm just putting it forward as a possible explination.

This reading hasn't changed my mind concerning my ability at all, only given me more experience with reading for skeptics and taught me that it's something I can't do so well lol

-ES-

1st December 2007, 06:41 PM

Hi ES,im a believer,i give readings sometimes,im open to it all and i was wondering if you would give me a tarot reading,i think this is a good idea to compare the readings you gave to a sceptic,then to a believer and open up a good discussion.

Hi

I would be happy to give you a reading, im just a little anxious incase i get things wrong again lol, If a Tarot Reading would be ok for you I will do one after dinner.

In advance I would kindly like to ask other members to save the criticism untill after lara replies :)

lara123

1st December 2007, 06:55 PM

hi,you really dont have to if it would cause you bother or upset,and i dont like it when criticisms occur,ive had my fair share too!!

Whatever happens,you deserve my respect,and others have said that also.

lara123

1st December 2007, 06:57 PM

i wont be able to get back on til 830-ill have a look then...best wishes whatever you decide.

Nasib

1st December 2007, 09:38 PM

Hi to all,
If I may put in my twopenn'orth here: A lot of reference has been made here to the Barnum and Forer Effect. 'Barnum' originating from the circus millionaire who coined the phrases "We have something for everyone" and "There's a sucker born every minute", and Phineas Forer the psychologist who conducted controlled tests on his students to prove that very point. A good example would be to take a look at a daily horoscope and assume that everything "fits" for your sign; but take a look at another sign and you can make that fit just as well. I totally agree that both of these can be attributed to many "psychic readings".

Sadly, though, there are far too many self-acclaimed "psychics" purporting to be "mediums" and this is where the misunderstandings arise where fraud is uncovered. To the unitiated they are all too often lumped together in the same bag. I think it important to clarify here the more than subtle difference between a "psychic" and a "medium".

As a developing medium I attended a workshop run by a very well known and highly respected medium where we were given an exercise to enable us to pinpoint that very difference. The first half of this exercise entailed giving a "psychic" reading for another person. I could tell that person things about their personality, lifestyle, loves/hates, etc, all proving accurate - pure cold reading on my part, but I got it right.

However, the second half, reading for the same person, we then had to "tune in" and give a reading as a medium, i.e. channel information from spirit rather than simply what is picked up yourself. As soon as I received my now recognised sensation of my guide's "calling card" I could then give an accurate visual description of an aunt of this girl's who had passed on, I momentarily physically "felt" how she had died, her name, birthday, and went on to give names, dates and events of others within her family. This information did not come from me - it was "given" to me to pass on through me as the medium, the channel. Neither was it picked up from my "sitter" because try as I may before that I could not have picked up such detailed information and at the same time receiving my own personal validations in the form of "confirming physical sensations".

Barnum and Forer cannot (or at least ought not) be attributed to mediumship.

bobdezon

1st December 2007, 09:44 PM

Barnum and Forer cannot (or at least ought not) be attributed to mediumship.

If they are not, the alternative is to believe the physical laws of the known universe have been circumvented, and magic is at work. I think I cannot accept that without adequate proof.

ZERO

1st December 2007, 09:54 PM

I momentarily physically "felt" how she had died, her name, birthday, and went on to give names, dates and events of others within her family.

Barnum and Forer cannot (or at least ought not) be attributed to mediumship.
Only if you can give accurate, specific information such as you described above. Can you read via the internet?

-ES- may or may not have an ability but it presents the same as the forer effect. Without more accurate information I find no reason to assume it isn't.

Nasib

1st December 2007, 10:24 PM

[quote=ZERO;26048]Only if you can give accurate, specific information such as you described above. Can you read via the internet?

I really don't know, Zero. I'm still discovering for myself what I can do. Maybe in time.. although to be perfectly honest I don't know if that's a thing I would even contemplate.

Nasib

1st December 2007, 10:31 PM

If they are not, the alternative is to believe the physical laws of the known universe have been circumvented, and magic is at work. I think I cannot accept that without adequate proof.

But the question then is, Bobdezon - where did that info come from?? I KNOW I received it - from where? And it's not just a one-off either; this is happening more and more now (in the confines of workshops and development classes).

FarSideOfTheMoon

2nd December 2007, 12:18 AM

Accuracy seems to have a different meaning when used by a person who considers themselves a medium.

I still don't understand the difference between a psychic and medium, other than the word 'psychic' seems slighly more tarnished with fraud and failure.

bobdezon

2nd December 2007, 12:19 AM

But the question then is, Bobdezon - where did that info come from?? I KNOW I received it - from where? And it's not just a one-off either; this is happening more and more now (in the confines of workshops and development classes).

Anecdotal information can never be an acceptable form of evidence. It might suffice for yourself on a personal level, but to state your case you would need to provide proof. That is unless you do not want to convince people you do Indeed have an ability. There are multiple ways of gaining information, I myself can probably do quite a good cold read as I am an observant person with some life experience. I wouldnt attempt to do it over the internet though as I would have nothing to go on and would probably have a high failure rate. I could however provide barnums galore and stand a 50% chance of hitting with every statement I made.
There is zero evidence to suggest this paranormal ability is even possible, nevermind probable.

-ES-

2nd December 2007, 12:34 AM

Nasib

2nd December 2007, 01:03 AM

I still don't understand the difference between a psychic and medium, other than the word 'psychic' seems slighly more tarnished with fraud and failure.

Psychic (pronounced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA): [ˈsaɪkɪk]); from the Greek psychikos - "of the soul, mental". The term Psychic is commonly used in popular culture to refer to the ability to perceive things hidden from traditional senses through means of extra-sensory perception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception). The term is also used to refer to theatrical performers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stage_magicians) who use techniques such as prestidigitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slight_of_hand) and cold reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading) to produce the appearance of having such abilities. People said to be sensitive to, or able to use, psychic forces are referred to as being psychics. Parapsychologists attempt to study what some believe are psychic phenomena using a variety of methods such as random number generators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generators) to test for psychokinesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychokinesis) or the Ganzfeld experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment) to test for extra-sensory percep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception)

Mediumship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediumship), a practice in which a person acts as an intermediary between the physical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics) world and what is believed to be a spiritual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural) world.

bindeweede

2nd December 2007, 01:10 AM

Psychic (pronounced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA): [ˈsaɪkɪk]); from the Greek psychikos - "of the soul, mental". The term Psychic is commonly used in popular culture to refer to the ability to perceive things hidden from traditional senses through means of extra-sensory perception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception). The term is also used to refer to theatrical performers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stage_magicians) who use techniques such as prestidigitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slight_of_hand) and cold reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading) to produce the appearance of having such abilities. People said to be sensitive to, or able to use, psychic forces are referred to as being psychics. Parapsychologists attempt to study what some believe are psychic phenomena using a variety of methods such as random number generators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generators) to test for psychokinesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychokinesis) or the Ganzfeld experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment) to test for extra-sensory percep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-sensory_perception)

Mediumship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediumship), a practice in which a person acts as an intermediary between the physical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics) world and what is believed to be a spiritual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural) world.

Nasib
Thanks for that. To little me, the most important words in your quote are "appearance" and "believed".

Fiona

2nd December 2007, 01:26 AM

There is also no solid evidence to say that it isn't possible, we cant really say for certain there isnt such a thing, sure we can speculate but cant say for certain, its somewhat similar to the question of " are we alone " if you see where i'm coming from.

I am a simple person and therefore I find this quite unsatisfactory really. I have no solid evidence at all that black and white striped giraffes do not exist: and indeed there is a picture of just such an animal in another thread here so I have better evidence in support of their existence than I do of spirits. The pictures of spirits I have seen could be anything, while the picture of the striped giraffe is definitely very like a giraffe in form, and it is quite clear

Nevertheless I do not believe in striped giraffes. Leaving aside the fact that the person who made the picture admits it was a fake, it is one example which flies in the face of everything else I know. Now one example which can be verified is enough to falsify the idea there are no striped giraffes, so long as I have ruled out trickery or error etc. In this case that cannot be ruled out, and could not even if the person making the claim had been trying to convince me. This is because I know enough about photography to know this can be done and I am not required to forget that knowledge when considering claims of this sort

I think it is true to say the possibility of psychic phenomena has not been ruled out by evidence, but that is not really the point, is it?. Many people will refer you to the "burden of proof", and they are right to say it lies on the side of those making the extraordinary claim. But for day to day purposes I prefer to say this: I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest that spirits and such exist: while evidence may come, for now I am happy to act on the assumption it will not and to behave as if they do not exist. That is what most people do about the tooth fairy, and if it is good enough for the tooth fairy.....

bobdezon

2nd December 2007, 01:27 AM

There is also no solid evidence to say that it isn't possible, we cant really say for certain there isnt such a thing, sure we can speculate but cant say for certain, its somewhat similar to the question of " are we alone " if you see where i'm coming from.

Incorrect, there is plenty of solid evidence to suggest is not true. Infact every test of it has failed, I would call that solid evidence wouldnt you? I can say with absolute certainty that psychic/medium ability does not exist. If it did there would be some evidence to suggest that from the data of the testing of the pychic/medium subjects. I wouldnt suggest that it is similar to the "are we alone" question, because we have no way of knowing that at this current stage of our scientific experience. However we are quite well versed in testing psychics and mediums.

Nasib

2nd December 2007, 01:28 AM

Nasib
Thanks for that. To little me, the most important words in your quote are "appearance" and "believed".

That was a pretty fast comeback, (little) Bindeweede.
However, my intention was not to debate the authenticity of the words or their meanings; merely to elucidate for Farside's benefit -
Originally Posted by FarSideOfTheMoon http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=26057#post26057)
I still don't understand the difference between a psychic and medium, other than the word 'psychic' seems slighly more tarnished with fraud and failure. -
what I was trying to emphasise earlier - the difference between a Psychic and a Medium.

Nasib

2nd December 2007, 02:43 AM

Anecdotal information can never be an acceptable form of evidence. It might suffice for yourself on a personal level, but to state your case you would need to provide proof. That is unless you do not want to convince people you do Indeed have an ability. There are multiple ways of gaining information, I myself can probably do quite a good cold read as I am an observant person with some life experience. I wouldnt attempt to do it over the internet though as I would have nothing to go on and would probably have a high failure rate. I could however provide barnums galore and stand a 50% chance of hitting with every statement I made.
There is zero evidence to suggest this paranormal ability is even possible, nevermind probable.

Today I was in the audience of a theatre hall where 6 mediums in turn gave demonstrations of their abilities (one of them you most certainly will have heard of as his name has been mentioned in this very thread). I only wish you could have been present to see and hear for yourself the numerous detailed messages that were delivered to various random people in that hall, and to decipher for yourself whether these specific details could indeed be classed as 'cold readings'. As each message was delivered I tried to imagine that the message was being given to me, a sort of a silent test to see if I could perhaps identify with any of them (Forer) - but given that every single message was so comprehensively and precisely unique to the receiver, every one passed my "test".

Have ANY of you actually attended such a forum in your search for "proof", and witnessed so many people receiving their personal validations? Or do you just rely on "listening to extracts of tapes from readings", third party "say so's", and out of context reports? Have any of you shared in the joy and emotion displayed by a grieving mother or father on receiving communication from their son torn from their lives in a car crash, first validating in many different ways who he is, name/nicknames, little idosyncracies of his own or those still living, describing how his watch is now worn by his best friend (named), and who is also a West Ham fan as he was, or the fact that his favourite music (named) was played at his funeral, letting them know that he is still around and loves them dearly. Or the mother 3 years passed who would like to say how proud she is of her eldest (named) passing her music exam 3 weeks ago & that she was with the family at the ensuing celebration ... on it goes.

I think the answer to my question is ... no. For surely if you were to experience this for yourself I do believe you may think twice about your own "beliefs". And if I am correct, that the answer is "no", then why? ... Why have you not attempted to quench your thirst for proof of your own? Until you prove that you are willing to put your feet where your mouths are (so to speak) then you will always be debating on third party terms.

bobdezon

2nd December 2007, 04:23 AM

Today I was in the audience of a theatre hall where 6 mediums in turn gave demonstrations of their abilities (one of them you most certainly will have heard of as his name has been mentioned in this very thread). I only wish you could have been present to see and hear for yourself the numerous detailed messages that were delivered to various random people in that hall, and to decipher for yourself whether these specific details could indeed be classed as 'cold readings'. As each message was delivered I tried to imagine that the message was being given to me, a sort of a silent test to see if I could perhaps identify with any of them (Forer) - but given that every single message was so comprehensively and precisely unique to the receiver, every one passed my "test".

As a believer, your objectivity is plainly skewed. I would expect them to pass your test.

Have ANY of you actually attended such a forum in your search for "proof", and witnessed so many people receiving their personal validations?

That is akin to watching a magician perform magic, It is a performance, there are hits and misses, people only remember the hits. The forget or discount the misses. This is why a transcript or recording is preferable to a live performance.

Or do you just rely on "listening to extracts of tapes from readings", third party "say so's", and out of context reports?

You mean physical evidence of the performance?

Have any of you shared in the joy and emotion displayed by a grieving mother or father on receiving communication from their son torn from their lives in a car crash,

Have you seen the horror and utter dejection on the faces of shaun holbrooks parents when slyvia brown told them he was dead, when he was very much alive?

first validating in many different ways who he is, name/nicknames, little idosyncracies of his own or those still living, describing how his watch is now worn by his best friend (named), and who is also a West Ham fan as he was, or the fact that his favourite music (named) was played at his funeral, letting them know that he is still around and loves them dearly.

All random chance of a hit in a large audience.

Or the mother 3 years passed who would like to say how proud she is of her eldest (named) passing her music exam 3 weeks ago & that she was with the family at the ensuing celebration ... on it goes.

That could apply to anyone who has lost a mother.

I think the answer to my question is ... no. For surely if you were to experience this for yourself I do believe you may think twice about your own "beliefs". And if I am correct, that the answer is "no", then why? ... Why have you not attempted to quench your thirst for proof of your own? Until you prove that you are willing to put your feet where your mouths are (so to speak) then you will always be debating on third party terms.

I work for badpsychics.com I can assure you you are wrong on all accounts. This is not information you can readilly accept because it would make you less magical. You need and desire to be magical so you can feel special. You do not need to, plenty of normal people think they are special enough without the aid of imaginary powers. You are not a more worthy human if you pretend to have magical abilities, IMHO you are less, because you rely on illusion to get through the day.

If you have an ability like you claim, please feel free to tell me details about myself not available online. Mothers name, fathers name, if I have siblings what are their names, do I have deceased grandparents and if so what are their names. Details I can agree with. Can you do that? Its just a name, nothing fancy.

Nasib

2nd December 2007, 10:58 AM

As a believer, your objectivity is plainly skewed. I would expect them to pass your test.

I do not claim to be a "believer". That is a sweeping label. My "objectivity" is applied in the same way I may perform a "test" e.g. on a reported excellent wine, by tasting and discerning for myself. It may prove "excellent" to me, or I may find it mediocre. Either way my "evidence" has now disappeared.

That is akin to watching a magician perform magic, It is a performance, there are hits and misses, people only remember the hits. The forget or discount the misses. This is why a transcript or recording is preferable to a live performance.

That is your preconceived notion, your assumption, and again a sweeping statement where you credit "people" with an overall lack of discernment.

You mean physical evidence of the performance?

Would not "physical evidence of the performance" include your own physical presence?

Have you seen the horror and utter dejection on the faces of shaun holbrooks parents when slyvia brown told them he was dead, when he was very much alive?

I was not there. Were you?

All random chance of a hit in a large audience.

The messages were not thrown out to the audience. The recipients were specifically pinpointed.

That could apply to anyone who has lost a mother.

Again, directed to an individual.

I work for badpsychics.com I can assure you you are wrong on all accounts. This is not information you can readilly accept because it would make you less magical. You need and desire to be magical so you can feel special. You do not need to, plenty of normal people think they are special enough without the aid of imaginary powers. You are not a more worthy human if you pretend to have magical abilities, IMHO you are less, because you rely on illusion to get through the day.

If you have an ability like you claim, please feel free to tell me details about myself not available online. Mothers name, fathers name, if I have siblings what are their names, do I have deceased grandparents and if so what are their names. Details I can agree with. Can you do that? Its just a name, nothing fancy.

I personally do not have any "need or desire to be magical" nor to feel "special". Neither do I term myself as "normal". Indeed, who can actually define the meaning of "normal"? All humans are worthy on an equal basis despite the opinions of any other "worthy" human. Do you determine the worthiness of all humans in that regard? An example:
3 people each performing a piano recital of say Beethoven's Fifth. One has studied and practised for years and hits all notes in perfect harmony, another with the same qualifications but a little shaky with nerves on a live performance, another without any musical qualifications whatsoever but may play the piece throughout solely "by ear". Do you judge whom is the most "worthy" individual there? And would you personally be able to decipher the "practised" or "ear playing" from the other?

The Great Bymble

2nd December 2007, 11:47 AM

Have ANY of you actually attended such a forum in your search for "proof", and witnessed so many people receiving their personal validations?

I think the answer to my question is ... no. For surely if you were to experience this for yourself I do believe you may think twice about your own "beliefs".

Nasib,if you peruse the various threads on UKS you will understand that many of the members here have been in the psychic/medium business themselves before becoming skeptics, so opinions are coloured by experience rather than ignorance.
In my own case,apart from a growing disenchantment with the apparent lack of anything except generic information,what caused me to think twice about my previous belief in spirit communication was hearing the resident medium discussing various details with the guest psychic to ensure that there were some 'amazing revelations' during the evening.
Have you stopped to consider the possibility that a similar event occurred at the event which you attended?After all,none of the examples which you gave as 'proof ' contained information that wouldn't be known by many family or friends of the individuals concerned.
Is it possible to provide a transcript or recording of the event?

-ES-

2nd December 2007, 12:05 PM

Incorrect, there is plenty of solid evidence to suggest is not true. Infact every test of it has failed, I would call that solid evidence wouldnt you? I can say with absolute certainty that psychic/medium ability does not exist. If it did there would be some evidence to suggest that from the data of the testing of the pychic/medium subjects. I wouldnt suggest that it is similar to the "are we alone" question, because we have no way of knowing that at this current stage of our scientific experience. However we are quite well versed in testing psychics and mediums.

No I wouldn't it just shows that those particular tests failed, it doesnt mean to say the ability does not exist, perhaps i'll put it another way, there is currently no solid evidence to suggest that spirits do not exist, this has not and cannot currently be scientificly proven beyond all doubt, sure there have been tests done i'm sure all have probably been either inconclusive or turned up blank doesnt mean to say that they don't exist. If you cannot say for sure spirits don't exist then surely the possibility that they may communicate with people exists also?

Fiona

2nd December 2007, 12:23 PM

Do you apply that to absolutely everything? What about the monster under your bed ?

-ES-

2nd December 2007, 12:37 PM

Do you apply that to absolutely everything? What about the monster under your bed ?

No of course not lol but once your dead and burried youll find out the truth :) we all will one day and that is fact :p

Fiona

2nd December 2007, 12:46 PM

Well in fact, I do not expect to find out. On account of the fact that I will be dead. :)

MischiefMonkey

2nd December 2007, 12:50 PM

Sorry I've been quiet the past couple of days - I've got family visiting so busy. Just popped in to answer this from bob.

That was badass, If that was a movie, Id pay to see that. Quick question though. Looking back with hindsight, how would you compare your believer self, with the new sceptical self? Which version do you think had the most ordered thoughts? Which version felt better to "be". It just interests me.

Briefly, I am much happier as I am and I my thoughts are more ordered. Not only does the 'new' me feel better, I think I am a better, more accepting, less self-absorbed, more confident person.

I'll visit Chillzero's thread when I have more time & expand a bit. (Hopefully tonight/tomorrow):smiley:

-ES-

2nd December 2007, 01:02 PM

Well in fact, I do not expect to find out. On account of the fact that I will be dead. :)

Like it or not you will find out lol, at least if there is an afterlife :)

Fiona

2nd December 2007, 01:24 PM

Well I won't worry about it, for reasons already outlined :)

-ES-

2nd December 2007, 01:31 PM

I guess lol, it's quite a question though isnt it? :p

truthseekerlee

2nd December 2007, 01:56 PM

The technology that will deliver concrete evidence of mediumship/psychic abilities has not yet been invented. It will be proved one day I'm sure of it.

InForAPennyInForApound

2nd December 2007, 02:58 PM

:-[ I'm just a normal human being...

chillzero

2nd December 2007, 03:18 PM

No of course not lol

How do you determine what you should and should not filter out?

brianp

2nd December 2007, 03:46 PM

The technology that will deliver concrete evidence of mediumship/psychic abilities has not yet been invented. It will be proved one day I'm sure of it.

Mediums and psychics claim to obtain information about people and events by non-physical means - technology relates to the physical world, so why on earth do you think that technology of any sort could provide evidence.

No. If these abilities were real then they would be detectable by examining the claims and/or claimants with ordinary human senses and using simple maths. We simply need tests which look for choices, predictions or happenings significantly different from chance expectations, and these are comparatively easy to devise. And we know what happens whenever tests of that nature are conducted.

And the only conclusion we can draw from the fact that every single properly designed test has failed to show such abilities in any person, is that they do not exist. Any medium or psychic can easily prove that conclusion wrong by demonstrating their abilities under controlled conditions - none have managed to do so in the last 100+ years, so I'm confident none ever will.

I'm not saying that all mediums and psychics are fraudulent - they may be mentally ill or simply deluded - but I am saying that none of their claims are real.

bobdezon

2nd December 2007, 04:26 PM

I personally do not have any "need or desire to be magical" nor to feel "special". Neither do I term myself as "normal". Indeed, who can actually define the meaning of "normal"? All humans are worthy on an equal basis despite the opinions of any other "worthy" human. Do you determine the worthiness of all humans in that regard? An example:
3 people each performing a piano recital of say Beethoven's Fifth. One has studied and practised for years and hits all notes in perfect harmony, another with the same qualifications but a little shaky with nerves on a live performance, another without any musical qualifications whatsoever but may play the piece throughout solely "by ear". Do you judge whom is the most "worthy" individual there? And would you personally be able to decipher the "practised" or "ear playing" from the other?

I would class anyone who behaved in a "normal fashion" would be considered normal. Mediums and psychics believe they have an abnormal power. That is the difference. To me anyone who behaves in a regular human fashion is worthy, however those who pretend to be magical are less worthy because they are deluded or liars. I would gladly accept any evidence to the contrary. I would love for mediums and psychics to be real. Unfortunately they are not depite assertions from its practitioners and believer audiences.

You example of the musicians is completely unrelated to the point of this debate, even if it was to illustrate a point.

bobdezon

2nd December 2007, 04:30 PM

No I wouldn't it just shows that those particular tests failed, it doesnt mean to say the ability does not exist, perhaps i'll put it another way, there is currently no solid evidence to suggest that spirits do not exist, this has not and cannot currently be scientificly proven beyond all doubt, sure there have been tests done i'm sure all have probably been either inconclusive or turned up blank doesnt mean to say that they don't exist. If you cannot say for sure spirits don't exist then surely the possibility that they may communicate with people exists also?

Apply that statement to the flying spaghetti monster. The same rules apply. Are we to also believe that FSM is real also? Why not surfboard riding "hell elves" with laser guns, why not the flying mountain of BU, whos job it is to fool unwary mountaineers? If no evidence is shown to exist then it serves little purpose to insist it does.

bobdezon

2nd December 2007, 04:31 PM

No of course not lol but once your dead and burried youll find out the truth :) we all will one day and that is fact :p

I will be right in the future, youll see? Hardly useful ES is it?

-ES-

2nd December 2007, 04:51 PM

Apply that statement to the flying spaghetti monster. The same rules apply. Are we to also believe that FSM is real also? Why not surfboard riding "hell elves" with laser guns, why not the flying mountain of BU, whos job it is to fool unwary mountaineers? If no evidence is shown to exist then it serves little purpose to insist it does.

Is there really need for such a silly reply? Fiona allready pointed it out, you know exactly how I meant it so please don't take me for an idiot. You cannot possibly say with absoloute certainty that such an ability exists, as you do not know for certain that spirits exist. Why do i have to keep repeating myself?

bobdezon

2nd December 2007, 05:44 PM

Is there really need for such a silly reply? Fiona allready pointed it out, you know exactly how I meant it so please don't take me for an idiot. You cannot possibly say with absoloute certainty that such an ability exists, as you do not know for certain that spirits exist. Why do i have to keep repeating myself?

It is not a silly reply, it is merely an exercise in logic. I am sorry you took that the wrong way. I was pointing out the fallacy of the way you are thinking concerning this matter, and how your excuse cannot hold water when exposed to critique. It was a good and valid example.

I can quite correctly state no such ability exists. If you have evidence to the contrary I would be happy to look at it. You see I can defend my position, the same cannot be said of mediums and psychics.

-ES-

2nd December 2007, 06:15 PM

It is not a silly reply, it is merely an exercise in logic. I am sorry you took that the wrong way. I was pointing out the fallacy of the way you are thinking concerning this matter, and how your excuse cannot hold water when exposed to critique. It was a good and valid example.

I can quite correctly state no such ability exists. If you have evidence to the contrary I would be happy to look at it. You see I can defend my position, the same cannot be said of mediums and psychics.

That's ok, I respect your opinions and dont wish to cause any bad feelings.

Nasib

2nd December 2007, 07:34 PM

Nasib,if you peruse the various threads on UKS you will understand that many of the members here have been in the psychic/medium business themselves before becoming skeptics, so opinions are coloured by experience rather than ignorance.
In my own case,apart from a growing disenchantment with the apparent lack of anything except generic information,what caused me to think twice about my previous belief in spirit communication was hearing the resident medium discussing various details with the guest psychic to ensure that there were some 'amazing revelations' during the evening.
Have you stopped to consider the possibility that a similar event occurred at the event which you attended?After all,none of the examples which you gave as 'proof ' contained information that wouldn't be known by many family or friends of the individuals concerned.
Is it possible to provide a transcript or recording of the event?

The Great Bymble
I have made several attempts to try and reply to your post but each time on submitting I'm getting told "server too busy at mo" - or my reply has disappeared ! spirited away into thin air ... don't know if this will come out either; have kept brief, but I do hope to reply to you imminently.
(This is on Edit now) I see it DID come out this time. Think I just need to cut down on the length. In short: yes have viewed previous threads & aware of situations referred to. My theory applied from 2 angles: observation & personal practical experience. The latter some of which can be seen on my previous post "Real v Fake Psychics" in October. (had to re-register for recent post cos forum didn't recognise me). Hope to reply in more detail at later stage. BTW - I can say with confidence - your experience of pre-discussion is most definitely not standard practice

Nasib

3rd December 2007, 01:02 AM

I would class anyone who behaved in a "normal fashion" would be considered normal.

Is that it, Bobdezon?! Is that your definition of "normal"? I'm afraid that doesn't explain anything to me ... what exactly is a normal fashion?

Mediums and psychics believe they have an abnormal power.

"Abnormal"? What is it? I am at a loss here.

That is the difference. To me anyone who behaves in a regular human fashion is worthy, however those who pretend to be magical are less worthy because they are deluded or liars.

A regular human fashion?? Worthy? Worthy of what exactly? To call themselves human??? To live in a "normal fashion"?

I would gladly accept any evidence to the contrary. I would love for mediums and psychics to be real. Unfortunately they are not depite assertions from its practitioners and believer audiences.

I take it your are inferring here that mediums and psychics are not "normal" in your accepted terms then (whatever those may be)?

You example of the musicians is completely unrelated to the point of this debate, even if it was to illustrate a point.

Well, you know - to my lateral thinking "abnormal" mind, my example was pertinent and relevant, but hey ho ....

So glad we got that one sorted out.

bobdezon

3rd December 2007, 01:30 AM

Is that it, Bobdezon?! Is that your definition of "normal"? I'm afraid that doesn't explain anything to me ... what exactly is a normal fashion?

The term normal is obscure to you? You know, like normal everyday folk. I dont know why you find that hard to grasp, its a simple concept.

"Abnormal"? What is it? I am at a loss here.

Abnormal? 99 people claim to have no paranormal ability, one claims to have a paranormal ability, that is abnormal. I am sure they will have a reference you could use online somewhere, but I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse here.

A regular human fashion?? Worthy? Worthy of what exactly? To call themselves human??? To live in a "normal fashion"?

Worthy of the title human, it is not just a descriptive term, it is a philosophy also. A medium who tells parents of a child that he is dead when he is not, is subhuman.

I take it your are inferring here that mediums and psychics are not "normal" in your accepted terms then (whatever those may be)?

No, I dont believe mediums and psychics are indeed normal, they are abnormal. They insist on this delusion despite no evidence. It is a belief based on faith not fact, even though they like to insist on facts which are infact not very factual to back their claims.

Well, you know - to my lateral thinking "abnormal" mind, my example was pertinent and relevant, but hey ho ....

So glad we got that one sorted out.

Yes, I can see that. Apology accepted. ;)

Nasib

3rd December 2007, 02:47 AM

Oh you know Bobdezon, you did make me chuckle. A bit of light relief in fact after a very frustrating attempt YET AGAIN to reply to The Great Bymble's post - TGB! I GIVE UP! It just won't let me get through to you. >:-) so instead I'll just have to meander slightly off topic and reply to Bobdezon's cheery informative little note.

Bobdezon,
Give me strength! I know the hour is late and the sandman is calling, but :

No, I dont believe mediums and psychics are indeed normal, they are abnormal. They insist on this delusion despite no evidence. It is a belief based on faith not fact, even though they like to insist on facts which are infact not very factual to back their claims.

for someone who uses the word fact so many times in one sentence, one non-factual sentence, ....???

I would like to ask you one question here (not that I'll be able to understand your answer of course ... ) but :

Abnormal? 99 people claim to have no paranormal ability, one claims to have a paranormal ability,

PLEASE do tell me - where on earth did you drag that "fact" from ???

::)

bobdezon

3rd December 2007, 04:04 AM

Give me strength! I know the hour is late and the sandman is calling, but :
.
for someone who uses the word fact so many times in one sentence, one non-factual sentence, ....???

You disagree that when questioned how a medium can do what they allege they can do they do not try to explain it with psuedoscience and odd bastardisations of quantum theory or the conservation of energy theory? You should stick around here more, youll see it all at some point or another. Bottom line is despite their insistance they are mediums they offer no proof, if something is held to be true with no proof it is faith. You cannot prove faith because it is personal and anecdotal. I think that is a pretty factual statement dont you?

I would like to ask you one question here (not that I'll be able to understand your answer of course ... ) but :

PLEASE do tell me - where on earth did you drag that "fact" from ???

::)

That is not a fact, it is an example to prove that abnormality is not normal to a group, In this case a test group of 100 people. With an abitrary figure to denote the abnormal element. But you knew that anyway ;)

Fiona

3rd December 2007, 09:43 AM

I am not sure the introduction of the word " normal" gets us very far - it carries too many meanings. It is true that if you are using it to talk about the percentage of the population who claim psychic power, then they are not the majority and could be said to be "abnormal". Or you could say that the percentage of people in any given population who are prepared to accept quite important concepts on the basis of "faith" is, at least sometimes, the majority, and they are therefore "normal". So the idea as a "statistical" concept is a slippery beastie.
But we all know it carries more meaning/inference than that and we should not pretend we don't, nor trade on that ambiguity to skirt insult, should we? Of course some are seriously of the view that such people are mentally ill; deluded; or fraudulent. But I am happier if that is said explicitly as BrianP did, because at least it is clear.
Because I am new here many of the arguments are also new to me. So I fully understand that a certain degree of impatience creeps in if you have seen and countered the same ideas many times. And naturally if you believe there is a strong possibility that the person you are debating with is a fraud, then you are apt to get testy. But then what is the point of participation? I suppose you can be here for a variety of reasons. To test your own beliefs against strong opposition; to enjoy the company and validation of like-minded people; to engage in discussion with a view to changing the other person's mind; to demonstrate your position to any uncommitted audience.....there are probably others. And they are not mutually exclusive.
In the short time I have been here I have been struck by the fact that those who "believe" do not seem to understand what seems to me to be the basic common consensus of the membership: that anecdote is not evidence and that such abilities require to be demonstrated under controlled conditions. To those who seek to convince people here, this is the inescapable condition. If you cannot do that then you will not persuade, though you might still test your belief to your own satisfaction and perhaps persuade any onlookers to your point of view
Similarly, the few "believers" I have seen do, as Bob points out, sometimes appeal to scientific concepts such as quantum theory: or even to science as yet unborn. You may be right. Perhaps something like Penrose's theory of consciousness as a product of quantum forces will one day shed some light on these issues. But at present it is no more than speculation and is no better than "spirits" in explanatory force.
And herein lies another problem. Because this side of the debate does not have a consensus so far as I can see. There is important disagreement about whether animals or embryos have spirits, for example. And if they do there is difference about whether that is tied to brain development or not. In short it is hard to delineate the particular claims of an individual and this can also be confusing especially when there are several people in one thread
What would help me, I think, would be a sort of checklist of what exactly is being claimed by each individual. It might avoid a lot of confusion. Just a thought

-ES-

3rd December 2007, 09:47 AM

Abnormal? 99 people claim to have no paranormal ability, one claims to have a paranormal ability, that is abnormal. I am sure they will have a reference you could use online somewhere, but I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse here.

Id also like to know where you got that fact from, there are a lot more than 1% of people claiming to have these abilities.

Worthy of the title human, it is not just a descriptive term, it is a philosophy also. A medium who tells parents of a child that he is dead when he is not, is subhuman.

I agree there are fraudulent mediums but doesnt mean we are all frauds and please dont say we are. If were not human what do you call these arms, legs eyes & feelings?

No, I dont believe mediums and psychics are indeed normal, they are abnormal. They insist on this delusion despite no evidence. It is a belief based on faith not fact, even though they like to insist on facts which are infact not very factual to back their claims.

Is the beleif of god not based on faith and not fact?

seren

3rd December 2007, 09:56 AM

ES the 99 out of 100 thing was an example, and yes belief in god is faith not fact and skeptics are often (not always) skeptical of that too, but actually I think Fiona's post needs addressing more.

The "normal" thing is a bit of a sidetrack imho.

-ES-

3rd December 2007, 10:00 AM

Ya I noticed the reply to it after i posted that question, wasn't there before, apologies for that.

Cuddles

3rd December 2007, 10:25 AM

I agree that using "normal" as an argument is pretty much pointless. To start with, most surveys show that well over 50% of people believe in paranormal things, so if anything, it is skeptics who are abnormal. However, this doesn't really matter. Argumentum ad populum is a very popular falacy, but that doesn't make it right for skeptics to use. What matters isn't how many people believe something, but whether that belief is correct. To take an obvious example, it used to be normal to believe the Sun orbited the Earth.

Similarly, it doesn't matter if virtually everyone believes in psychics or only one person on the whole planet does. What matters is the evidence, and that evidence shows that not a single person has ever provided any good evidence of anything paranormal. Believers in psychics may or may not be normal, what is important is that they are wrong.

lara123

3rd December 2007, 10:45 AM

Legaleagle

3rd December 2007, 11:06 AM

Hi

Thanks for the up, certainly appreciated :D

I apologise for not getting round to that question yet, I was going to get round to it :)

I cannot say for certain if there is a 'cutoff' point or not as i've never really thought about it much, intellegent animals such as apes, dolphins, birds and so forth I would imagine do have spirits. As for a foetus I cannot say for certain as it's a little different and I have no knowledge about how it works with one.

ES,

Glad to see you still sticking around.

Your thinking on the philosophical questions surrounding life after death seems a little confused, if you don't mind me saying so. You appear to have made the assumption that the human personality survives bodily death without clearly thinking the implications of this momentous cosmic assumption through.

This first assumption (which may be wrong) has led you to the conclusion that you are able to communicate with the disembodied personalities of dead humans, and that voices or intuitions that you have within your own mind are being received from an external source (a dead human). This is not necessarily so.

You are clearly someone who is interested in understanding the mysteries of the cosmos, but I fear that you are taking the wrong path. I would urge you to take an open minded look at the totality of the scientific and philosophical literature which is out there. Take on board what people on this board are saying, don't reject it out of hand (even if you don't like it). Good luck to you.

ZERO

3rd December 2007, 11:31 AM

belief in god is faith not fact and skeptics are often (not always) skeptical of that too
This does not sit well with me.
If god or gods exist, there is a spirit world (I assume). If there is a spirit world, mediumship is possible. I can't understand how one can choose to be skeptical about one and not the other.
I'm strongly athiest and it would take pretty strong evidence to convince me god and/or a spirit world exists.

What matters is the evidence, and that evidence shows that not a single person has ever provided any good evidence of anything paranormal.
Thats ridiculous!Thousands of people have received good evidence.You can try as you might to take it away from them but you will fail.Thousands of psychics have given good evidence.
No. Thousands of credulous people have been convinced by means other than evidence. If there really was proper evidence there would be a field of science devoted to its study.

seren

3rd December 2007, 11:58 AM

It doesn't sit well with me (an atheist) either, but skepticism and atheism do not necessarily go together for everyone, for some reason.

There's a debate on the JREF forums on this, which I can't participate in because my registration was turned down for some reason. :-[

-ES-

3rd December 2007, 12:17 PM

The way I see it is, why accept the possibility of one and not the other? if one exists surely the otherone would be entirely possible also. Some skeptics no doubt do believe in god but they are in a sense going back on their own words.

seren

3rd December 2007, 12:25 PM

You can try as you might to take it away from them but you will fail.

You make it sound as if we have an evil plot; that what we're doing is trying to deny "the truth". We're not on an mission to try to take things from people- like Mr Burns from The Simpsons stealing Maggie's candy.

Why on earth would we do that?

Our position is that what many people think is evidence isn't really evidence. That people are misunderstanding what they experience, and that there are other possible explanations.

What interests me is similar to something I've heard Richard Dawkins say. When a Christian asked him "What if you're wrong?" about not believing in God, he replied, "What if you're wrong? You're Christian because you were born into a Christian family in America. If you'd have been born in India you'd have believed in Hinduism, if you'd have been born in Ancient Greece you'd have believed in Zeus"... etc etc.

OK, so you've had some weird experiences. Why do you think your explanation of them (ie spirits) is the right one? It's just one that we in the West understand because it's based on Christian idea of souls and life after death. You say people have had evidence, but you can't produce a spirit and show it to me. The evidence is the information given, but you can't prove where that information comes from, you can only say where you believe it comes from, and your explanation of where it comes from is totally bound by our cultural thinking about death and the afterlife. Someone from another culture or time wouldn't understand the concept. If they had any kind of similar experience, they would probably explain it totally differently and be just as convinced by their explanation as you are convinced that it's spirits.

If all I have as evidence is that you say one thing and so-and-so says something else, how am I supposed to judge who's right? I would suggest that I test what you're both saying and find out. That's all skeptics do. Really. It's not about stealing your evidence from you, it's about testing it to see if it's real evidence or not.

-ES-

3rd December 2007, 12:43 PM

I see your point I know skeptics aren't on a plot, it's just what you believe and this is what we believe. It's just that some skeptics can be a little to rude and harsh the way they go about it all, I don't mind opinions being expressed as long as it's within reason of course.

I will always stand up for what I believe in and you're just doing the same, we can all get along amicably im sure :)

Cuddles

3rd December 2007, 01:50 PM

What matters is the evidence, and that evidence shows that not a single person has ever provided any good evidence of anything paranormal.

Thats ridiculous!Thousands of people have received good evidence.You can try as you might to take it away from them but you will fail.Thousands of psychics have given good evidence.

No they haven't. Anecdotes are not evidence. No studies or tests have ever provided good evidence for anything paranormal. I use the word "good" because there are of course plenty of people who claim to have evidence, but they always turn out to be horribly flawed tests or just plain made up. The PEAR studies would be a perfect example of this.

lara123

3rd December 2007, 02:00 PM

You make it sound as if we have an evil plot; that what we're doing is trying to deny "the truth". We're not on an mission to try to take things from people- like Mr Burns from The Simpsons stealing Maggie's candy.

Why on earth would we do that?

Our position is that what many people think is evidence isn't really evidence. That people are misunderstanding what they experience, and that there are other possible explanations.

What interests me is similar to something I've heard Richard Dawkins say. When a Christian asked him "What if you're wrong?" about not believing in God, he replied, "What if you're wrong? You're Christian because you were born into a Christian family in America. If you'd have been born in India you'd have believed in Hinduism, if you'd have been born in Ancient Greece you'd have believed in Zeus"... etc etc.

OK, so you've had some weird experiences. Why do you think your explanation of them (ie spirits) is the right one? It's just one that we in the West understand because it's based on Christian idea of souls and life after death. You say people have had evidence, but you can't produce a spirit and show it to me. The evidence is the information given, but you can't prove where that information comes from, you can only say where you believe it comes from, and your explanation of where it comes from is totally bound by our cultural thinking about death and the afterlife. Someone from another culture or time wouldn't understand the concept. If they had any kind of similar experience, they would probably explain it totally differently and be just as convinced by their explanation as you are convinced that it's spirits.

If all I have as evidence is that you say one thing and so-and-so says something else, how am I supposed to judge who's right? I would suggest that I test what you're both saying and find out. That's all skeptics do. Really. It's not about stealing your evidence from you, it's about testing it to see if it's real evidence or not.

The name calling to psychics/mediums is not difficult to find on this forum.Rarely does one skeptic step up and say stop to the others.Differing opinions should not be allowed to result to verbal abuse.In a lot of forums,this would not be allowed.The way to get psychics to give readings on here is by changing the attitude and getting back to good debates and still able to agree to disagree.

Most psychics/mediums who have visited here may have given readings if they were'nt jumped on and assumptions and accusations made,and many are quite horrific.

If i could produce a spirit for you to see,i would.So all i have got is the information they tell me and it is a possibility i may post a reading here.

So you see,skeptics do a lot more than you say they do-they can and do offer good opinions but in the most part it in wrapped with abuse.On here anyway.

The Great Bymble

3rd December 2007, 02:17 PM

A bit of light relief in fact after a very frustrating attempt YET AGAIN to reply to The Great Bymble's post - TGB! I GIVE UP! It just won't let me get through to you. >:-)
Nasib - I would mention 'The Ghost in the machine',but it might be taken in the wrong context!
I re-read your post on your personal experiences,and again,without transcripts or tapes it's simply anecdotal,much as my own stories are.
To my everlasting regret ,I neglected to tape the sessions that I had with 3 different 'spiritual healers' a few years ago- they were spontaneous freebies that all took place within a short period of time when I was feeling a bit 'peaky'. All 3 gave me a clean bill of health('clear aura' etc.),and left me feeling positive and saying how amazingly accurate they were because they'd 'picked up' my various aches,breaks and sprains.
It definitely came as a surprise when I visited the doctors and was told that I was infected with Hep-C,and that I'd probably had it since my teens - evidently 'Spirit' cannot detect blood-borne viruses,although it can make educated guesses when it knows the subject limps from a bike accident.(maybe I should have seen a self-styled 'vampire' for a tasting?:smiley:)
Certainly the ' spiritual healing' that I received wasn't as aggressive as the therapy which was required to clear the virus,but evidently not as effective.
Don't think that this has made me 'bitter and twisted' - I've always been that way...
It does mean that I for one will require much more proof than generic information or anecdotal recollection to accept claimed psychic phenomena as genuine.

truthseekerlee

3rd December 2007, 02:53 PM

Normal????? There's no such thing as normal, just open your eyes and you will see nothing near normality in this world we live in. No such thing as normal.

-ES-

3rd December 2007, 03:26 PM

Nasib
To my everlasting regret ,I neglected to tape the sessions that I had with 3 different 'spiritual healers' a few years ago- they were spontaneous freebies that all took place within a short period of time when I was feeling a bit 'peaky'. All 3 gave me a clean bill of health('clear aura' etc.),and left me feeling positive and saying how amazingly accurate they were because they'd 'picked up' my various aches,breaks and sprains.
It definitely came as a surprise when I visited the doctors and was told that I was infected with Hep-C,and that I'd probably had it since my teens - evidently 'Spirit' cannot detect blood-borne viruses,

In my opinion they shouldn't have answered health related questions anyway, as I never answer any health related questions both for legal reasons and for ethical reasons, I don't feel it's an appropriate thing to do. Health issues should be dealt with by doctors, it's not worth the risk. I know i'm saying this as a medium but even I don't think health issues as serious as that should be left entirely in the hands of alternate therapy.

MischiefMonkey

3rd December 2007, 04:39 PM

In my opinion they shouldn't have answered health related questions anyway, as I never answer any health related questions both for legal reasons and for ethical reasons, I don't feel it's an appropriate thing to do. Health issues should be dealt with by doctors, it's not worth the risk. I know i'm saying this as a medium but even I don't think health issues as serious as that should be left entirely in the hands of alternate therapy.

That's very laudable. But raises a question in my mind.

Does that mean you don't 100% trust spirit (or your medium/psychic abilities)? If you doubt them in medical matters, why trust them otherwise? Your reading 'suggested' to me a career change. That could be life altering - and potentially damaging - advice. Where do you draw the line? If spirit told you that your sitter has a serious illness and should seek medical help, do you disregard the spirit?

FarSideOfTheMoon

3rd December 2007, 04:49 PM

The name calling to psychics/mediums is not difficult to find on this forum.Rarely does one skeptic step up and say stop to the others.Differing opinions should not be allowed to result to verbal abuse.In a lot of forums,this would not be allowed.The way to get psychics to give readings on here is by changing the attitude and getting back to good debates and still able to agree to disagree.
Most psychics/mediums who have visited here may have given readings if they were'nt jumped on and assumptions and accusations made,and many are quite horrific.
If i could produce a spirit for you to see,i would.So all i have got is the information they tell me and it is a possibility i may post a reading here.
So you see,skeptics do a lot more than you say they do-they can and do offer good opinions but in the most part it in wrapped with abuse.On here anyway.

Like most who proclaim themselves mediums (or psychics - I still don't know the difference), you simply do not understand the skeptical position.

The last few pages of this thread are a good example.

Skeptics need evidence. Skeptics do not respect an opinion, they look at all the evidence and that is what they are influenced by. Of course we question extraordinary claims. Most of us have seen it all before. Extraordinary claims such as these cannot be allowed to pass without critical questioning.

What has been produced on this thread as evidence is not - it is anecdote and vague. It has been explained that these results can be obtained by other means without the need for paranormal explanation.

The problem you face is that until you understand what constitutes evidence obtained under controlled circumstances, this debate cannot move forward.

The reading ES did on this thread was a good example of what skeptics just cannot accept as evidence. I could produce a better psychic reading than that.

seren

3rd December 2007, 05:13 PM

I'm getting the name Bob, Robert...or Richard. He's telling me about the car, something about the car- the brakes? Or it's broken? It's not clear. If that doesn't make sense look out for it, it will happen.

OK he's telling me me about a holiday, a holiday you all went on together. I'm getting a feeling of family, close family here. He's telling me about ice-cream, somebody spilled ice cream down themselves or there's some memory there with ice cream or an ice lolly.

Oh, incidentally he's very happy in the spirit world and says hello.

Is that any better Mischief (or anyone else?). I maded it up.

-ES-

3rd December 2007, 05:22 PM

bobdezon

3rd December 2007, 05:27 PM

Thats actually a good exmple of the type of "proof" people accept. Random events which could apply to anyone.

seren

3rd December 2007, 05:28 PM

<<crossposted with bob- this is for ES>> Why do you think that's about you? I actually wasn't taking the mickey. I was attempting to see if this Barnum/Forer effect works or not. I didn't mention you and I clearly stated it was made up- I didn't claim I had any mediumistic powers at all. I want to know if people can make anything of that, and Mischief is the one who's been read for already.

Essay: People who profess psychic abilities have unnaturally thin skins and perceive slights where there are none. Discuss.

-ES-

3rd December 2007, 05:29 PM

That's very laudable. But raises a question in my mind.

Does that mean you don't 100% trust spirit (or your medium/psychic abilities)? If you doubt them in medical matters, why trust them otherwise? Your reading 'suggested' to me a career change. That could be life altering - and potentially damaging - advice. Where do you draw the line? If spirit told you that your sitter has a serious illness and should seek medical help, do you disregard the spirit?

I see your point, however I find giving medical advice on a psychic level inapropriate, not because I dont trust what I receive from spirit, but simply because i find it inapropriate, health issues is where I draw the line.

Howver I can see your point regarding something such as a career change, however in the end it is up to you what to do about it but I will keep that point in mind for when I do readings in the future, thanks.

-ES-

3rd December 2007, 05:32 PM

The Great Bymble

3rd December 2007, 05:49 PM

In my opinion they shouldn't have answered health related questions anyway, as I never answer any health related questions both for legal reasons and for ethical reasons, I don't feel it's an appropriate thing to do. Health issues should be dealt with by doctors, it's not worth the risk. I know i'm saying this as a medium but even I don't think health issues as serious as that should be left entirely in the hands of alternate therapy.
-ES- Glad to see you're still contributing to the debate.
At the time in question,it seemed that everyone and their (deceased) grandmother within that particular social circle was eager to establish their paranormal credentials.As there was already a brace of ostensible 'Trance Mediums' ,it seemed that the next best thing in the strategy of 'Endorsmanship' was to claim healing abilities in the quest for status.IMO ethics played very little part in what was essentially an exercise in ego-gratification by most.
Again,I didn't take their 'diagnoses' as an alternative to mainstream medicine,and sought professional advice when I eventually felt worse and worse.
Can any health matters be left to alternative therapies?

Cuddles

3rd December 2007, 05:49 PM

I'm getting the name Bob, Robert...or Richard. He's telling me about the car, something about the car- the brakes? Or it's broken? It's not clear. If that doesn't make sense look out for it, it will happen.

Hey, my old car's brakes never worked properly, and now it's broken.

OK he's telling me me about a holiday, a holiday you all went on together. I'm getting a feeling of family, close family here. He's telling me about ice-cream, somebody spilled ice cream down themselves or there's some memory there with ice cream or an ice lolly.

I've been on holiday with family and I've had ice-cream. That's amazing.

Oh, incidentally he's very happy in the spirit world and says hello.

Wait, I'm dead? Oh well, 4 out of 5 isn't bad.

FarSideOfTheMoon

3rd December 2007, 05:59 PM

I see your point, however I find giving medical advice on a psychic level inapropriate, not because I dont trust what I receive from spirit, but simply because i find it inapropriate, health issues is where I draw the line.

Howver I can see your point regarding something such as a career change, however in the end it is up to you what to do about it but I will keep that point in mind for when I do readings in the future, thanks.

Don't you think it is immoral not to tell someone something when it is possible medical intervention would help save their life or improve their future quality of life?

-ES-

3rd December 2007, 06:00 PM

-ES- Glad to see you're still contributing to the debate.
At the time in question,it seemed that everyone and their (deceased) grandmother within that particular social circle was eager to establish their paranormal credentials.As there was already a brace of ostensible 'Trance Mediums' ,it seemed that the next best thing in the strategy of 'Endorsmanship' was to claim healing abilities in the quest for status.IMO ethics played very little part in what was essentially an exercise in ego-gratification by most.
Again,I didn't take their 'diagnoses' as an alternative to mainstream medicine,and sought professional advice when I eventually felt worse and worse.
Can any health matters be left to alternative therapies?

Hi

I wouldn't soley leave any health issue to alternative therapies, however it wouldn't hurt to try it as an 'additional treament' for want of a better phrase but certainly woulnd't use alternative therapy for the main treatment if you know what i mean.

-ES-

3rd December 2007, 06:21 PM

Don't you think it is immoral not to tell someone something when it is possible medical intervention would help save their life or improve their future quality of life?

Interesting question,

Human nature would most likely get me to do whatever i could for them, however if they didn't know that they were ill i'm not sure if I could stick my neck out like that. Would you be able to, if you were a medium for example?

Sorry if the answer was a little vague but it was actually a very hard question for me to answer.

FarSideOfTheMoon

3rd December 2007, 06:26 PM

Hi

I wouldn't soley leave any health issue to alternative therapies, however it wouldn't hurt to try it as an 'additional treament' for want of a better phrase but certainly woulnd't use alternative therapy for the main treatment if you know what i mean.

I always wondered why those who are more inclined to believe in alternative medicine are also those inclined to believe in the paranormal.

Where is it that science and education have gone so wrong in this country?

lara123

3rd December 2007, 06:39 PM

Like most who proclaim themselves mediums (or psychics - I still don't know the difference), you simply do not understand the skeptical position.

The last few pages of this thread are a good example.

Skeptics need evidence. Skeptics do not respect an opinion, they look at all the evidence and that is what they are influenced by. Of course we question extraordinary claims. Most of us have seen it all before. Extraordinary claims such as these cannot be allowed to pass without critical questioning.

What has been produced on this thread as evidence is not - it is anecdote and vague. It has been explained that these results can be obtained by other means without the need for paranormal explanation.

The problem you face is that until you understand what constitutes evidence obtained under controlled circumstances, this debate cannot move forward.

The reading ES did on this thread was a good example of what skeptics just cannot accept as evidence. I could produce a better psychic reading than that.

Farside-firstly i will try to explain the difference between a psychic and a medium.If i were to read you in a psychic way,i would be 'reading' your energy,the energy we all have.That energy contains all about you.A good psychic could pick up information about you.That could be your career,personal life,hopes,dreams and maybe worrying situations to you.Most psychics to my knowledge would not pick up everything,maybe get a handful.[i know you think no psychic could do it,lets leave that for another time]

My belief is psychics have different ranges of ability.Why? I dont know,but i have had this proven to me.

So,hopefully you will understand now,that a psychic reading is your energy being read.

With mediumship--the word medium is important here---medium=in the middle....you have the sitter[person being read]...the medium [receives spirit contact] and the spirit giving communication.

Psychic readings do not involve spirit communications,mediumship does.

Therefore it is possible to be psychic without being a medium but all mediums are psychic.

I have never once said skeptics should'nt question ,they should and i believe even psychics/mediums need to question their abilities.Some don't,i acknowledge that,and i think they should,for their sakes and everybodys elses even more so.I have previously said i enjoy many of the questions the skeptics have,they are questions i would be asking too.

I would like to know more about the 'controlled circumstances' that constitutes evidence,and if you could provide a link i would be grateful.And will come back with my views.

My concerns were always about the nastiness,we can get our opinions across without it,at least we can if we breathe deeply at times. and between the two of us,im willing to give it a go with you.:smiley:

lara123

3rd December 2007, 06:47 PM

i see im a senior member now.:cheesy:does it come with a pay rise?;D

MischiefMonkey

3rd December 2007, 07:00 PM

I'm getting the name Bob, Robert...or Richard.

Miss. If I was a believer, I might make the stretch to my Uncle's name. It began with a R.

He's telling me about the car, something about the car- the brakes? Or it's broken? It's not clear. If that doesn't make sense look out for it, it will happen.Miss. But Hubby wrote his car off so I gave him mine - which is due an MOT - and I got a new(ish) one. So if I as a believer I'd probably be worried on both counts!!

OK he's telling me me about a holiday, a holiday you all went on together. I'm getting a feeling of family, close family here. He's telling me about ice-cream, somebody spilled ice cream down themselves or there's some memory there with ice cream or an ice lolly.No Uncle related holiday or frozen confectionery memories:sad: However, I am currently trying to decide where to go on holiday. To be honest I was hoping that the reading -ES- gave would give a holiday connection. Using a psychic to choose a holiday destination is as good a method as any;)

Oh, incidentally he's very happy in the spirit world and says hello.Tell him hi.

Is that any better Mischief (or anyone else?). I maded it up.About on a par seren - though the car reference (which I've had more or less word for word from more than one medium) was close.O0

-ES- I understand you might feel slighted by seren's 'reading' but can you not see how similar your reading and hers are? General statements of which some are likely to apply to the sitter? And can you see how a sitter can take a 'miss' and make it fit? I think it server as a useful 'control'.

-ES-

3rd December 2007, 07:00 PM

I always wondered why those who are more inclined to believe in alternative medicine are also those inclined to believe in the paranormal.

Where is it that science and education have gone so wrong in this country?

psychic/medium abilities are closely link with a lot of alternate therapies but people who beilieve in alternate therapies do not always believe in the paranormal, however in most cases it would be a safe bet to make, and don't ask me to name any cases lol, I don't read up on alternative therapy much.

-ES-

3rd December 2007, 07:43 PM

Miss. If I was a believer, I might make the stretch to my Uncle's name. It began with a R.

Miss. But Hubby wrote his car off so I gave him mine - which is due an MOT - and I got a new(ish) one. So if I as a believer I'd probably be worried on both counts!!

No Uncle related holiday or frozen confectionery memories:sad: However, I am currently trying to decide where to go on holiday. To be honest I was hoping that the reading -ES- gave would give a holiday connection. Using a psychic to choose a holiday destination is as good a method as any;)

Tell him hi.

About on a par seren - though the car reference (which I've had more or less word for word from more than one medium) was close.O0

-ES- I understand you might feel slighted by seren's 'reading' but can you not see how similar your reading and hers are? General statements of which some are likely to apply to the sitter? And can you see how a sitter can take a 'miss' and make it fit? I think it server as a useful 'control'.

I can see what you're trying to get at, it's kind of the same as a non-psychic tarot reader doing a reading to a psychic one doing a reading, but the methods do differ slightly.

MischiefMonkey

3rd December 2007, 07:56 PM

I can see what you're trying to get at, it's kind of the same as a non-psychic tarot reader doing a reading to a psychic one doing a reading, but the methods do differ slightly.

But if the end result is exactly the same, does the method matter?

And just because you (presumably) clear your mind, maybe ground yourself, meditate, use a prop (tarot cards) and what ever other 'ceremony' you need, why does that make you psychic? Given that you had the same Barnum-esque result and a comparable hit rate to seren, is it possible that you just think you are psychic? And that you are subconsciously picking up on available information and/or making general statement? Because your general statements seem to work - as your believing sitters fit them to their lives - it reinforces the idea in your mind that you are psychic.

Is it possible? If not, why not?

-ES-

3rd December 2007, 08:25 PM

To me it does, but from a skeptical point of view I guess not.

I do believe that my abilities are genuine, despite what others may think or try to tell me, not that I don't respect their beliefs of course, or understand them :)

However I doubt I am ever going to change my beliefs, I accept what I am and am gratefull for what I have.

MischiefMonkey

3rd December 2007, 08:59 PM

To me it does, but from a skeptical point of view I guess not.

Could you expand? Why would the method be important to you but not a sceptic? Or to a sitter for that matter. Surely the results are what counts?

If your methods got far superior results - for example if you had specifically mentioned my Uncle, especially his name or manner of passing, that the 'rough time' was more lower than normal house sale stress and pain in the butt tenants - then I would have said perhaps the method does matter as it has produced superior results.

As it is, the different methods got similar results. So why does the method matter?

I do believe that my abilities are genuine, despite what others may think or try to tell me, not that I don't respect their beliefs of course, or understand them :)

However I doubt I am ever going to change my beliefs, I accept what I am and am gratefull for what I have.

I used to think my beliefs would never change. It was only by questioning those beliefs, exploring the possibility that my 'ability' was a, not that much of an ability and b, not at all paranormal. I was an intuitively good cold reader, though I didn't realise that was what I was doing.

You have a vested interest in maintaining your beliefs. Your identity is built upon your idea that you are a psychic medium. You have a web site and I dare say many friends whom you may lose if you questioned and/or abandoned your beliefs. Perhaps you fear the finality of death, this can be a powerful motivator for faith. I doubt people would follow religions quite so seriously if it didn't offer an after life.

Psychic/Medium -ES- is 'who' you are.

I was similar. It was only when the benefit I derived from maintaining my belief system was lessened greatly (it was, in fact, harming me) that I could let go of it. And I've never looked back.

So perhaps at some point you will doubt your faith. All I hope is that you hang around here and keep an open mind:smiley:

Oh, and where should I go on holiday?:cheesy:

-ES-

3rd December 2007, 09:14 PM

MischiefMonkey

3rd December 2007, 09:36 PM

It matters to me because of the way I believe I receive the information and because of what I beleive I am. From a psychics point of view it would matter to them because they are using their ability to get the information but from a skeptics point of view it's no different as it's not been proven to them but to a psychic they would have their own proof. For the sake of the argument say this is true.

It seems to me you are saying it matters to a psychic because it supports their belief system. A sceptic has no belief in psychic abilities to support, so it doesn't matter.

Is that fair?

Cyprus sounds like a nice place to go :D

It's gorgeous - especially the North. Well, it was last time I was there. Dad say's it's a bit of a building site now:sad:. I fancy somewhere different, somewhere I haven't been before (which leaves a lot of options;D)

-ES-

3rd December 2007, 10:02 PM

It seems to me you are saying it matters to a psychic because it supports their belief system. A sceptic has no belief in psychic abilities to support, so it doesn't matter.

Is that fair?

Sorry I didn't mean it to sound unfair, i mean it in the sense that skeptics see it as if the ability doesnt exist, i meant no disrespect. It's somewhat difficult to explain.

It's gorgeous - especially the North. Well, it was last time I was there. Dad say's it's a bit of a building site now:sad:. I fancy somewhere different, somewhere I haven't been before (which leaves a lot of options;D)

Tunisia is nice, lovely beaches. went there on holidy once when i was a kid. really nice hotels too.

MischiefMonkey

3rd December 2007, 10:30 PM

Sorry I didn't mean it to sound unfair, i mean it in the sense that skeptics see it as if the ability doesnt exist, i meant no disrespect. It's somewhat difficult to explain.

I didn't think you were being unfair - I was worried you might think I was being unfair!:smiley: I too am having difficulties articulating exactly what I mean to express.

I'm saying that, from what you wrote and my own experiences, the method matters because psychics need to support their own belief system. Without a psychic method, it is just a Barnum statement. If you, like seren, came up with a reading without employing any 'psychic' method (thus knowingly making a Barnum Statement) and it was 'accepted' by a sitter, that would damage your belief system would it not? Therefore, you need the 'method' where as a sceptic knows that regardless of method, it is a Barnum statement.

Tunisia is nice, lovely beaches. went there on holidy once when i was a kid. really nice hotels too.

That might be an option:smiley:

-ES-

3rd December 2007, 10:52 PM

I didn't think you were being unfair - I was worried you might think I was being unfair!:smiley: I too am having difficulties articulating exactly what I mean to express.

Oh right, sorry misunterstanding there :)

I'm saying that, from what you wrote and my own experiences, the method matters because psychics need to support their own belief system. Without a psychic method, it is just a Barnum statement. If you, like seren, came up with a reading without employing any 'psychic' method (thus knowingly making a Barnum Statement) and it was 'accepted' by a sitter, that would damage your belief system would it not? Therefore, you need the 'method' where as a sceptic knows that regardless of method, it is a Barnum statement.

In a way.

It matters to a psychic because they have had their own proof of their abilities and are trying to prove it to people who do not believe, being the skeptics. Say, once again for the argument spirits and the paranormal are real it would be hard for someone who has had proof of it's existance like a psychic or a medium, to accept what they are picking up on as inconclusive evidence or as you say 'Barnum Statement"

It would be just as hard for them to accept that the way they did the reading does not matter or that they are deluded, when they know for a fact spirits and the paranormal are real.

I hope this helps you

seren

3rd December 2007, 11:30 PM

ES,

First I'd like to once again thank you for sticking around and talking to us. So few mediums or believers in mediums do.

I'm going to try to put this another way because I fear we are divided by a common language here.

It would be just as hard for them [mediums] to accept that the way they did the reading does not matter or that they are deluded, when they know for a fact spirits and the paranormal are real.

OK, the bolded bit is where the problem lies. We end up going in circles, like this:
"Spirits exist because I've experienced them, so I just know they do".
"But what if you were wrong? What if what you experienced could be explained as something else?"
"Well, I'd have difficulty believing in the something else because my experience tells me it's definitely spirits."
"But you might have got the wrong idea. Your experience might feel like "spirits", but it's more likely that it's not".
"OK, but I KNOW for a FACT it was spirits because I experienced them".

And so on and so on ad infinitum.

The difficulty is in the word "fact". If something is a fact, it is generally held to be true because the vast majority of available evidence says that it is true. To take a silly example, trees grow out of the ground. This is a fact. We can observe them doing so. We can dig them up and view their root systems. We all agree that trees grow out of the ground.

If someone were then to claim that it's invisible tree sprites that make the tree grow, well then that person has a problem. Because how the hell does he prove it? The tree sprites are invisible, they leave no evidence of their existence. We can't dig the tree up and find them inside. Even if 10, 20, or 200 people start believing in tree sprites and claim to have spoken to them, tree sprites cannot be called "fact". Even if millions and millions of us claim to have spoken to them, there is still no other piece of evidence to show they exist, so it's not a fact, it's a belief. It is not the same as true.

Here are the "facts" as I would guess them to be (pardon me if they are wrong)
- when you do readings for people, they tell you you are accurate
- when giving readings you sometimes feel thoughts are just forming in your mind independently, or are perhaps placed there- either way you don't "think" them up yourself
- perhaps sometimes you feel a presence or presences.

For the sake of argument let's assume that's all true. When you say that you have experienced spirits, what you're doing is giving a name to those three phenomena. You are taking three things that you've experienced and trying to explain them, give them a name. Your explanation is spirits, but you can't see them, show them to anyone else and they don't leave any trace other than the information you give to sitters. They are exactly like the tree sprites- a belief, not a fact.

I hope you understand the difference, it's not easy to explain and I'm tired. I'll hand over to others now cos I have to be up early tomorrow- and that's a fact! :smiley: