Of Dungeons & Dragons and life after death

My recent posts on Osama bin Laden and the afterlife raised an issue for me that I've been aware of for some time. When I consider evidence for the afterlife in general, such as accounts provided by mediums, near-death experiencers, or even hypnotically regressed subjects, I often find the material plausible and illuminating. But when I ponder the fate of specific deceased individuals, whether bin Laden or people I've known in my personal life, it all starts to seem a bit unreal to me, and I find myself asking: How much do I believe this stuff, really?

Years ago I read an essay by Joseph J. Stefula, Richard D. Butler, and George P. Hansen on a controversial UFO case. The essay concluded that the UFO investigators weren't actually serious about looking for evidence that would cast doubt on the case, and didn't take the actions that people who genuinely believed these claims would have taken. They behaved more like participants in a role-playing game such as Dungeons & Dragons. The roles they played added drama and interest to their lives, and they were unwilling to lose the fun and excitement of the game by subjecting it to reality-testing.

I have to wonder to what extent my own interest in the afterlife fits this description. Certainly I've detected this mindset in some other people who've offered evidence for life after death. For instance, I've written about the peculiar claims made by Mark Macy in his book Miracles in the Storm and the (in my opinion) inadequately supervised materialization experiments conducted with David Thompson. Then there are historical cases such as William Crookes' investigation of Florence Cook or Baron Schrenck-Notzing's investigation of Eva C. (a.k.a. Marthe Beraud), which seem to bear every indication of a shared fantasy, a sort of folie a deux between researcher and subject. This is just another kind of role-playing.

It's fairly easy to see the role-playing or shared-fantasy aspect of cases like those listed above, but how about the stronger cases? Here it's much more difficult to dismiss the phenomena as imaginary. I'm thinking in particular of the decades-long investigations of Gladys Osborne Leonard, Leonora Piper, and Eileen Garrett. Unfortunately all these cases were current many years ago. Piper and Leonard were active around the turn of the last century. It's impossible to reconstruct the atmosphere of those tests with complete certainty.

Did Charles Drayton Thomas accurately report the book and newspaper tests that seem so convincing, or did he (perhaps unconsciously) fudge certain details or stretch the facts to make the predictions fit? The predictions were sent to the Society for Psychical Research as soon as they were recorded, but how carefully were they reviewed, and to what extent did biases and predispositions on the part of the examiners affect their conclusions?

Were the famous "cross-correspondences" as meaningful as the dedicated researchers believed, or did the researchers dig out isolated scraps of information from a mass of extraneous material in order to construct an apparent correspondence after the fact?

Even the impressive R-101 case is open to criticism, since Eileen Garrett's sessions with Oliver Villiers weren't recorded verbatim, but were written down immediately afterward by Villiers, who was trusting his memory.

I'm not saying that these objections are fatal to these cases. I do think, on balance, the pro-afterlife interpretation of these and similar investigations is more plausible than any skeptical alternative. But I can't rule out the skeptical alternatives altogether.

What I wonder is if my reluctance to pursue doubts on this subject is prompted by a subconscious desire to continue the role-playing persona I've created for myself. Some people might ascribe this reluctance to fear of personal extinction at the moment of death, but I think it's more likely to be fear of the extinction of a persona that has become part of my ego.

Consider this: If I were fully and unflinchingly convinced of life after death, wouldn't I expect the AWARE study to yield solid hits? Yet I'll be very surprised if any of the participants can accurately describe even one of the hidden images. So how confident am I? Do I think the evidence will always fall just short of being conclusive? And if so, is it because the universe has been set up this way to keep us in perpetual doubt, or is it because of a fundamental weakness in the evidence itself?

Don't get me wrong. I think there is more than enough evidence to justify -- but not to coerce -- a belief in life after death. I think the strongest cases, such as those listed above (and there are quite a few others), are extraordinarily difficult to explain without the hypothesis of an afterlife. Still, increasingly I'm aware that my interest in this subject is based, at least in part, on the enjoyment of contemplating something outre and unconventional. I've created a persona for myself, and I play a role appropriate to this persona.

Actually I think we all do this. The hard-nosed skeptic is playing a role, too, and so is the person who is too "practical" to be interested in things like spirituality. Maybe we can't help but role-play all the time, and Shakespeare was right when he wrote that all the world's a stage. Our best hope may be to become more aware of the artificiality of the roles we play, and of the insubstantiality of even our most cherished convictions.

Comments

[Sandy]

Hope, not all characters are produced by the mediums. Sometimes living people create projections that mediums can see. I have a friend who has a "ghost" that a number of people have seen. But the ghost looks like a close mentor of my friend who was still alive during the time it was first being seen. It's kind of a perfect mentor/brother/father figure for the person it is seen with. I don't think it's a ghost in the sense of being a discarnate individual. I think it's a projection of someone my friend really needed in his life at that time. There is also the fact that my friend has an interest in mediums, and having an imaginary friend that can be seen by mediums is a quick way to start a conversation with someone who has that ability. So the projection met a lot of this person's needs.

I think psi often is about meeting one's needs. Even those needs you don't know you have.

[Hope Rivers]

Your timing is impeccable Sandy I was in the process of posting something but had to cut and paste and come back to it only about 5 minutes before your post this is it.....

"The observer creates the reality.
No doubt in my mind about that".

But this doesn't explain the apparition I saw at 20 behind a man known for his healing abilities in broad daylight. My frozen state was my saving grace, I'd never seen a semi solid spirit with full features(holographic in nature)it prompted him to ask whether I was seeing spirit. At my nod he began informing me of his spirit guide who frequently has appeared a dozen other times when in the company of those sensitive to see. In fact a couple clairvoyants described the spirit guide to him in far more detail beyond his attire, height, age he looked etc. They got his birthplace, period he lived on earth, name and life's work both accurately. Everything he described was what I saw with my eyes. I hardly manifested that myself! It came from nowhere.

Before this time I had experience with apparitions, mostly shadow form, moving sparks in silhouette of a human shape, and even moving apparitions that reminded me of frozen water, fluid looking.

All my previous experiences made me skeptical as to whether what I was seeing was genuine or a figment of my imagination.

This experience changed me forever. The man who the guide belonged to unfortunately had never seen him or felt his presence.

It's easy to say we create everything with our minds, and I don't disagree totally. But surely it can't be THAT crazy and insane out there. I would think from looking out how we live in this universe, there would be order not chaos.

[Hope Rivers]

Just to not confuse I meant you hadn't posted when I had my entire post written out ready to send. I saved it because I tried to post and it wouldn't accept it for some reason. So I tried in another browser, in fact it was less than 5 minutes, probably 2 minutes of mucking around!

[Michael Prescott]

I think Stephen Braude has argued that super psi is potentially falsifiable. He makes this case in his book Immortal Remains.

[Matt Rouge]

Hope,

I use Firefox for Mac. I find that often if I refresh the page and then hit send again, it accepts my post. It saves the text even after I hit refresh, though I wouldn't make any guarantees on that. :)

[Leo]

Oh I take that back then what I said I will have to read his book to find out.

[Douglas]

I would like to mention David thompson's mediumship as a contribution to survival evidence, or at least psi itself.

I know that there are some problems with his work, and some, such as Michael and Zerdini, are sceptical of some of his results, but I don't doubt that there is indeed genuine psychic activity going on there, and some of it damn impressive too.

I think the problem with Thompson is that he is probably also injecting a lot of his own interpretations into the sessions too, and with psychic activity this can distort the messages coming through.

Thompson seems to generate a lot of hits, and reading the testimonials, there is no doubt that the some sitters feel they have made definite contact with deceased relations, due to the deeply personal information given over.

But against this, you get some odd stuff, such as the 'celebrity' spirits - louis armstrong etc - I think that Thompson himself believes them to be genuine, but i have a feeling that some of these are his own psychic projections and he hasnt twigged this yet.

What confuses things is that there appear to be genuine messages struggling to get out, but it's hard to know which is which.

[Matt Rouge]

I've listened to tapes of the David Thompson sessions, and I share Michael's skepticism--and also to a degree his lack of skepticism. Here's a relevant post:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2008/08/rethinking-david-thompson.html

The reason why I was skeptical is that a lot of the voices were just plain ridiculous. He did the voice of a child that seemed to be not how a real child would talk but a very fake and inane child's voice and personality. I also think the Louis Armstrong voice sounded extremely fake.

The impression he gave was that he was just making the voices himself and that there was no ectoplasmic voice box involved at all. One bit of evidence for this was that there were zero (in the tapes I heard) female voices produced at all. An ectoplasmic form should be able to do male and female equally well, right.

On the other hand, as Michael said, it sounds as though he were restrained so well that it would be quite a trick to get out of the restraints and do what he did.

I was listening to the sessions as they were going up in real time, and there was some talk of using an infrared camera to film the sessions and why they just couldn't do that because of the vibrations or whatnot. Poppycock. A camera only receives the light that is already in the room. It doesn't assault the medium with energy.

Film it and prove it, I say.

[Sandy]

When it comes to filming mediums, it may matter more what the medium thinks the camera will do than what the researcher using it thinks it will do to the medium or to the phenomenon.

It's very hard to get anomalous things on film. I first was able to occasionally move a pk wheel within a jar more than a year ago. A year later, I'm finally to the point where I'm able to video it happening on a fairly regular basis (pretty much every day for the last week).

Getting that first bit of something anomalous on video is a big deal and takes a lot of patience and persistence. It wasn't until I set up the webcam and tried to do that on a daily basis for a number of months that I finally started getting results. I don't know many people who are that consistent and persistent.

Oddly enough, once you get it on video the first time, it seems to get easier on subsequent attempts. At least in my case that is how things have worked. Of course, it is quite possible that my belief in that being the case has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm also very used to the webcam being there because I take my laptop with me everywhere. It isn't as intrusive as a typical camera might be.

I think you have to start off rather accommodating to any unusual phenomenon. Once you start getting more robust results, then you can increase the controls. But I think if you push things too soon, you'll just end up quashing what you are hoping to study.

[Matt Rouge]

Sandy,

I am thinking more in terms of demonstrating that Thompson is not cheating. An IR camera would show the whole room as if it were completely lit (though without color).

Though, as you say, if Thompson knew he was being filmed, then he might not be able to produce--whether legit or not.

It would be interesting if someone wore a hidden IR camera in one of his sessions.

[Michael Prescott]

"It would be interesting if someone wore a hidden IR camera in one of his sessions."

That would be interesting, but as I understand it, the sitters are thoroughly searched before they are allowed to enter the room. The explanation is that IR cameras can "damage the ectoplasm" and hurt the medium. As Matt says, this should not apply to passive IR equipment, but supposedly it does.

[Zerdini]

I sat in a David Thompson seance and wasn't searched as I am quite familiar with seance protocol.

As editor (for ten years) of a magazine that dealt specifically with physical mediumship, plus my own personal experiences, I am more than capable of assessing it.

As far as I am concerned there wasn't a scrap of survival evidence in the seance I attended.

It's only since he moved to Australia that all this nonsense about infra-red surfaced in addition to claims of being a materialization medium.

None of the sitters including Victor Zammit had ever attended a materialization seance so just assumed that what they were told by Thompson was correct.

I've had this debate with him before and don't wish to go into it again.

Suffice it to say that, while he and other groups may produce phenomena, until they can produce materialization for all to see in good light (red, blue, or white), as did Alec Harris, Hunter Selkirk, Gordon Higginson and others, I remain uninterested.

All the claims by Zammit and others is just so much hot air.

[no one]

"The explanation is that IR cameras can "damage the ectoplasm" and hurt the medium."

"Though, as you say, if Thompson knew he was being filmed, then he might not be able to produce"

"It's very hard to get anomalous things on film."

Statements like these make this die hard believer wince.

"Film it and prove it, I say."

Indeed

[Bruce Siegel]

"Our best hope may be to become more aware of the artificiality of the roles we play."

You know, Michael, the more I think about this post, the more I like it. It encourages me to come clean about a role that I myself play. It's phony, and I don't like it in myself, and I hate it when I see it in others. And maybe confessing it here and now will help me to get past it. A little.

I'll start with what's real. I'm genuinely interested in the subject matter of this blog. It's endlessly fascinating and literally all-encompassing, dealing as we do, with meta-stuff: the truths that underlie everything else.

Our conversation often gets me thinking about who I am and what's most important to me.

Secondly, I enjoy the company. It's fun talking about this stuff with others, rather than just rolling these matters around endlessly inside my own skull. And we've got some sharp minds and good people here.

So what's the role I play, the artificiality I'm referring to? It's this. I've gotta be SMARTER than you (meaning everyone here). Anything you present, I have to find a way to improve it, refute it, or go deeper.

Which means, for example, that instead of reading what you have to say, and just absorbing and enjoying it for what it is, I'm constantly looking for my hook--something to grab onto that will enable me to play my little game of being wiser, more compassionate, funnier, or in some other way, better.

So there it is. But maybe you already know this about me. And maybe some of you play the game yourselves. It's often hard for me to know the truth of that because I see this tendency everywhere, but knowing how projection worlds, I think maybe I'm really just looking at myself.

Jeez--it just occurred to me. I hope I'm not just trying to be the most honest person here. :o)

[Bruce Siegel]

Next to last paragraph, should be:
but knowing how projection works.

[Roger Knights]

"So what's the role I play, the artificiality I'm referring to? It's this. I've gotta be SMARTER than you (meaning everyone here). Anything you present, I have to find a way to improve it, refute it, or go deeper.

"......."

Check out Stephen Potter's classic book One-Upsmanship!

[Roger Knights]

PS: Read the customer reviews. and check out Potter's other books--and their reviews. They embody the best of British Humor. (Dry, roundabout, subtle, unexpected, absurd.) It's a shame they're out of print and not yet in Kindle editions.

Also check out Lawrence Durrell's three absurd "memoirs" of diplomatic life, Sauve Qui Peut, Esprit de Corps, Stiff Upper Lip.

[no one]

You know, Bruce, if I were to write my own mea culpa it would read pretty much just like yours.

However, I've been visiting this blog for a while now and I have to say that I have never perceived you as trying to one up anyone. I have always found you to be a voice of reason and civility with a refreshing sprinkle of good humor. Whenever I see that you have posted a new comment to a thread, I don't have the reaction of "uh o what's that guy gonna say this time"; which is usually, for me, what happens when I have encountered a "one upper" on a blog. Quite the contrary actually, in your case.

I think most - probably all - of us are here for the positive reasons you state. And, in order to express our views, pool our knowledge and perspectives and, ultimately arrive at an enhanced understanding, it is no doubt necessary and good that we challenge each other and take each other's positions and push them further to their logical conclusions and/or the outer limits of the envelope and build upon them.

One of the dangers inherent in introspection is that one can lose or distort perspective in the echo chamber. So, hope you don't mind a little external input :-)

I like all kinds of music; the so called "classic rock" included. Ever listen to Jimi Hendrix? Sometimes I play the CD, 'Axis Bold As Love' and especially the title song, as a reminder, when I have been going through a rough bout of self examination.

cheers.

[Sandy]

No one, there are many processes in the natural world that can't be brought into the lab and filmed. Many examples are seen in geology, because geological timescales and mechanisms are hard to compress into something we can relate to.

The "dolomite problem" is one example. It seems likely that in the earth's past that primary dolomite production was a widespread occurrence. It is a rarity today and poorly understood. There are thoughts it might have something to do with bacterial mediation, but attempts to bring that into the lab for testing haven't been particularly satisfying.

That doesn't mean that it isn't something worthy of study. That doesn't mean widespread primary dolomite production didn't occur in the past. It just means that this is a difficult thing to study and the best chance of understanding it seems to be to consider those rare places in the world where the phenomenon is in the process occurring naturally.

The idea of "film it and prove it" doesn't apply to many things measured in science. And there are those who wouldn't believe their eyes anyways.

[no one]

Sandy, I am not sure the dolomite problem is analogous. To my mind, if a medium claims to be able to create a physical manifestation, right here, right now, then that physical manifestation should be something that can be captured on film just like any other physical object.

To say that ectoplasm is somehow allergic to the camera and film seems a wee bit too facile for my taste.

[Michael Prescott]

Interesting thoughts, Bruce. I don't think you come off that way, but I can relate to what you're saying, as I certainly act like that on some blogs (maybe including this one).

I find the resistance to passive IR very suspicious. It's interesting that in one case when an IR camera was used, the medium's accomplices were caught on film as they entered and exited the pitch dark seance room via a secret door. (They played the materialized spirits. The incident is reported in The Psychic Mafia, by Lamar Keene.)

It's also interesting that the Scole phenomena abruptly ceased at the very point when IR was about to be introduced.

On the other hand, there is the case of Leslie Flint, who conducted a direct-voice seance when an IR device was being used intermittently. Flint had no way of knowing when the device was switched on or off, yet when the deice was on, the spectral voice faded to near-inaudibility, and when the device was turned off, the voice instantly came back at full strength.

[Bruce Siegel]

Thank you, no one and Michael, for the kind words. And Roger, too, for that "One-Upsmanship" book link. Maybe the next best thing to getting rid of an annoying trait is to make a career of it.

"Flint had no way of knowing when the device was switched on or off, yet when the device was on, the spectral voice faded to near-inaudibility, and when the device was turned off, the voice instantly came back at full strength."

That's pretty intriguing, Michael. What do you make of that?

"there are many processes in the natural world that can't be brought into the lab and filmed. "

Sandy, I think that's a huge point, one that Skeptics would prefer to ignore. Maybe psi is like love--100% real and 100% worthy of study (what could be worthier?), but to truly understand it, you have to observe it where you find it!

Actually, maybe linking those two things--psi and love--is not such a silly thing to do. They both seem to be fundamental aspects of the universe. (Anyone who takes NDEs seriously would have to agree with that.) And maybe psi, like love, can NEVER be fully grasped by intellectual means.

Why do we always assume that our rational mind is, in principle, capable of understanding everything we put before it?

[Sandy]

No one, I have been able to get a small pinwheel to spin inside a jar for more than a year now. I have seen it myself. With my own eyes. You have no idea how frustrating it is not to be able to film something that you have been able to do for so long and have witnessed over and over again. It's not something one would expect to be a problem. Like you said, if it occurs then why can't it be filmed?

But it couldn't, it wouldn't work the way we all know it was supposed to. I spent months practising in front of a webcam and finally I caught that first tiny movement on video... after that it stopped being shy. It makes no sense to me at all. PK works the way it works, and we don't understand it very well. It's shy of cameras. It makes no sense, but it works that way.

All I can say is that if someone wants to use special cameras in the presence of a medium, then that medium may need time to get used to it. It might take months or years. Only the PK knows for sure.

[Matt Rouge]

Bruce,

I've only gotten a good impression from you here and never anything negative. Then again, you've been complimentary about my posts, so I'm inclined to like you. :)

We all need some validation, man! I checked out your blog (great stuff) and of course have read your posts here. You're clearly a darn smart guy. There are a lot here. And what I know about smart people (being one :)), is that, even if your ego is not huge, there can still be this feeling, "I was born smart and have done all this hard work, and all I got was this lousy tee shirt." You kinda wanna cash it in for something, right?

So you get around some other smart people, and it's like playtime! Let's get in the social strokes and show what we can do.

It's only natural until we all attain Buddhahood. :| And you're a good guy and don't play the game obnoxiously. So don't be too hard on yourself!

[Matt Rouge]

Sandy et al.,

Yes, the observer is a big issue in quantum mechanics, so it doesn't surprise me it would be in various psi situations.

But in the case of David Thompson, I'm left thinking, "But but but..."

Because he's allowed AUDIO tapes of his sessions! That's a huge observer, isn't it? That doesn't spook his abilities, but filming with IR would?

Sounds like an awfully convenient limitation--just as the requirement for darkness is in the first place.

And no compromise is possible? Instead of an IR video camera, how about taking an IR snapshot every 30 seconds or even every minute? Or even every 5 minutes? I think it would be *very* hard to cheat if a photograph of the full room were taken every minute. And that takes only a fraction of a second and makes no noise. Would that spook his abilities, too. Hmm...

What I think Thompson has going on is a big mess--a crazy stew of fake and real. For one thing, have you heard the audio? It's a travesty. The voice of his child control sounds like an imbecile who never heard a child speak before doing a halfhearted imitation while drunk. I mean, really, it sounds like someone imitating a stoned Mickey Mouse, not a child!

But he is also producing some genuine paranormal phenomena--either that or he's a world-class illusionist and escape artist. But I would also not be surprised if he's cheating at the same time.

I'd love to know what's going on in that room. A little bit more in the way of proof would be appreciated.

[Sandy]

Matt, I didn't say no compromise is possible. What I'm saying is that it could take time to get the phenomenon to occur during IR recording. Maybe months or years.

If I were the medium, I wouldn't be put off by the amount of time it might take. I would just set aside a certain amount of time for IR recording, maybe 15 minutes at the end of successful sessions. If that stopped the phenomenon for the time being, at least the first part of the session would have been unaffected.

I would think that after a while, the phenomenon would eventually get used to the IR - the same way my pinwheel got used to the webcam - and just happen as if it weren't even there.

[Bruce Siegel]

"So don't be too hard on yourself!"

Thanks, Matt. But you know, writing that little "confession" was exhilarating. In revealing a silly little game I play, I felt as though I was robbing it of its power over me. I think Michael might have felt similarly liberated when he wrote:

"I've created a persona for myself, and I play a role appropriate to this persona."

With the unspoken thought being: "And now that I've told you the truth, we can all stop pretending that it isn't so!"

[Zerdini]

I'd love to know what's going on in that room. A little bit more in the way of proof would be appreciated.

It's unlikely to happen, Matt.

For instance his so-called guides who gave details of their alleged earthly existence were found to be false by genealogists who checked the information given.

"A rigorous check was made of all genealogical records. Of the birth records, the census records for 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1890 & 1901, together with a search of the death registration (by 1890 this was mandatory and preceded burial, the records were meticulously kept and preserved through both wars). There is no William Charles Cadwell, let alone one described as a man of science living anywhere in the UK let alone in or around London, fitting any of these records. This check was made by several people including experienced genealogists and they reached the same conclusions."

The whole sorry tale can be read here:

spiritualismlink.forumotion.com/t672-questions-for-david-thompson

[Matt Rouge]

Hi Zerdini,

Thanks for that link. It would be nice to hold this conversation up to skeptics to demonstrate that we "believers" are often the genuine skeptics, but of course they are not open to that possibility. Cheers!

[Bruce Siegel]

"It would be nice to hold this conversation up to skeptics to demonstrate that we "believers" are often the genuine skeptics,"

Agreed, Matt. Reminds me of a nice quote I just read somewhere. Something like this:

Skepticism has its value--as long as it remains skeptical of itself.

[Matt Rouge]

Bruce,

Yes, it's good to confess and purge! As a newish poster here, I wish I had something to confess. But, as yet, my sins are elsewhere. :)

Always fun reading your posts...

[Bruce Siegel]

Matt said: "As a newish poster here, I wish I had something to confess. "

Funny, you don't look newish. (It's OK for me to make that joke because I'm Jewish.)

Come to think of it, if you were Jewish, you'd probably feel as though you had LOTS to confess. It's genetic.

[David Chamberlain]

Michael, to return to your original comments for a moment. David Fontana, in his book "Is There an Afterlife?" describes a phenomenon which he calls "morning-after skepticism". If I may quote:

"During the Cardiff investigation I would spend the day in John's workshop, observe a range of phenomena that could not be accounted for by normal means, and leave for home convinced that what I had seen was genuine. Yet on the journey home the doubts would already begin to arise. My rational mind would start to argue that such things can't really happen."

I feel it myself. I read tons of this stuff and become convinced beyond doubt. After a while, I forget what really convinced me and begin to wonder about my own gullibility.

But I believe this is a good thing in some ways. I'm convinced that those of us who experience these doubts do keep a check on wishful and uncritical thinking and take care to look at both sides. Materialist sceptics, I suspect, have less motivation to be self-critical, or to look at both sides, because they believe they hold the rational high ground.

[Zerdini]

I feel it myself. I read tons of this stuff and become convinced beyond doubt. After a while, I forget what really convinced me and begin to wonder about my own gullibility.

That is quite understandable unless you have had experience of mediumship yourself. Reading itself can be of great value but it can never replace personal experience.

At a seminar I organised in 1997 two of the invited speakers were Prof. Arthur Ellison and Prof. David Fontana.

Following the seminar David wrote to me as follows:

“It was a most enjoyable weekend, and I much appreciated your arranging for me to attend both the [physical mediumship] sittings.

"I have to say also ...... that your conference organisation is one of the very best I have experienced.

"I attend academic conferences all over the place, and rarely do I come across such excellent timekeeping, information dissemination and general support both for speakers and participants. Many congratulations.

"In addition, your talk and your chairmanship provided some of the outstanding highlights of the weekend, so you can see why I enjoyed things so much.

"Still on the subject of the Ark Review, I would like to do interviews with Tom Harrison and with Stuart Adamson if you agree. Tom likes the idea (I haven’t asked Stuart yet).

"I think readers would be interested, and obviously Tom and Stuart have such rich experiences to call upon (as you do yourself).

Sincerely yours

David"

[Topher Cooper]

When the evidence for the survival question is seriously discussed, whether it is apparent apparitions, hauntings, mediumistic communication, veridical Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs), past lives memories, or other physical or psychological remainders of a past life, the counter-hypothesis of super psi is frequently brought up.

Generally super psi is brought up and then rejected. This isn't surprising: the only function served by the adjective super is to justify rejection. If we start with the assumption that some super, i.e., extraordinary, kind of psi -- something different from regular psi -- is required to explain the phenomena then we are not choosing between explaining the phenomenon in terms of a proven phenomenon (psi) and an unproven phenomenon (postmortem survival), but between two unproven phenomena (super psi and postmortem survival).

There is no need to talk about super psi, though, it is simply psi that stands as the counter-hypothesis.

For some justification and explication of this, in my usual rambling, convoluted style, check out Super Schmuper Its Just Psi at my new blog MetaSkepticism.

[Matt Rouge]

Bruce,

Haha. I have lots of Jewish friends. I think the good sense of humor is also genetic.

Cheers,

Matt

[Matt Rouge]

Topher,

I RSSed your blog. Interesting!

[Bruce Siegel]

"I think the good sense of humor is also genetic."

Matt, you know, you may have a point there. No one could ever accuse me of being a chauvinistic Jew--I certainly don't practice or identify with the religion, and I can probably think of as many annoying "Jewish traits" as positive ones. (I'd have to think about that, and I do hate to generalize.)

But--for such a relatively tiny group, it is pretty amazing when you consider the startling percentage of outstanding comedians who have been (or are) Jewish. And the same goes for pianists, violinists, scientists (Einstein, of course), and so many other professions.

Thanks for giving me something to feel good about on this Memorial Day. And congratulations on your choice of friends. ;o)

[Matt Rouge]

You bet, Bruce!

:)

[Matt Rouge]

By the way, I'm Irish, and it's INCREDIBLE when you consider the startling percentage of outstanding DRUNKS who have been (or are) Irish.

:)

[Bruce Siegel]

:o)

[David Chamberlain]

Me: "I feel it myself. I read tons of this stuff and become convinced beyond doubt. After a while, I forget what really convinced me and begin to wonder about my own gullibility."

Zerdini: "That is quite understandable unless you have had experience of mediumship yourself. Reading itself can be of great value but it can never replace personal experience."

I agree and indeed have said something similar on my own website while discussing the fear of death:

"Fear is often due to a lack of understanding. Generally speaking, we do not know what happens during the process of dying, nor are we certain of what happens afterwards. As [Anthony] Burgess says, no amount of rationalist reading can expunge that fear and, for those of us who think differently, no amount of parapsychological reading can expunge it either. Only knowing can do that and only experience can bring that knowing. That is why those who have been through a genuine Near Death Experience usually come out of it devoid of any such anxiety. That is one of the hallmarks of the NDE."

I have not had one of those affirming experiences nor am I aware of any latent mediumistic skills I might possess.

[Zerdini]

David, I had a look at your website/blog and it is very well presented.

I've read the books you mention on your site but, as you probably know, they are only the tip of the iceberg.

[Art]

I know what the Physics of the other side is like. We will be like Hiro Nakamura on Heroes. Masters of Time and Space. The Physics will be equal to a sheet of holographic film. Everything interconnected, each piece contains the whole, everything interpenetrrates everything. We will feel like we are literally everywhere at the same time. Whatever we focus our attention on that is what we will experience.

[David Chamberlain]

Zerdini, thank you for that kind comment. The site is in its early stages - I want to add a lot more.

Building the site was prompted by a discussion with my atheist/materialist son. I realised that, while I could talk on (at least) equal terms with him about physics and the materialist point of view, he had little to no exposure to the kind of evidence that I read. I asked him if he would read some of it if I put it together online for him - he promised that he would.

I'm not trying to convert him to a religion ... I'm not religious myself. I would just like him to look at the evidence for the paranormal before dismissing it.

So I would appreciate any links to what we might term "the best evidence".

By the way, I suspect that, in our desire to be rational and objective in our own search for answers, we might be missing the point somewhat: the point being that reality is essentially subjective and that such evidence tends to be elusive when we attempt to objectify it.

[Douglas]

On the other hand, there is the case of Leslie Flint, who conducted a direct-voice seance when an IR device was being used intermittently. Flint had no way of knowing when the device was switched on or off, yet when the deice was on, the spectral voice faded to near-inaudibility, and when the device was turned off, the voice instantly came back at full strength.
------------------

I think the above info from Michael raises a very interesting points about evidence for the afterlife.

Is it the case that we are not allowed to have definite evidence?

I think what this shows is that mental attitudes and motivations can influence the strength of any particular manifestation.

Perhaps voice recordings work more easily because they are more readily accepted by the mind and have been for over a century.

[Art]

"Is it the case that we are not allowed to have definite evidence?" - douglas
----------------------------------------------

This is what I believe. It's in the "not knowing" that the lessons are learned. The more emotional the experience the more powerful and long lasting the memory. There is a close connection between emotion and memory.

Losing someone we love to death is the most powerful lesson in separation we can experience. Nothing else comes close. Teaching the soul what it means and how it feels to be separate. Something it can't learn in heaven due to those overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness due to it's holographic nature.

[Zerdini]

Art wrote: I know what the Physics of the other side is like.

A very dogmatic statement which you can't possibly 'know'!

Even those who live in the next world don't 'know'.

It's all speculation on your part.

[Zerdini]

David wrote: So I would appreciate any links to what we might term "the best evidence".

Here are some suggestions to start with - there are many many more.

“No Living Person Could Have Known” by W.F.Neech

“One Hundred Cases For Survival After Death” by A.T.Baird

http://www.aeces.info/index.shtml

“Alec Harris: The Full Story of His Remarkable Physical Mediumship” by Louie Harris

“Voices in the Dark” by Leslie Flint

Food for thought for your son.

[Art]

"It's all speculation on your part." zerdini
------------

No it's not. It's based on having read thousands of near death experiences and their connection, corroboration, and parallels with the holographic universe theory and quantum physics.

I bet I'm right and after we cross over to the other side my beliefs will be vindicated.

[Sandy]

Art, I've had an NDE and I have way more questions then answers about that experience. I guess it's nice for you that you have such strong faith in your beliefs, but it really is just faith.

I remember Dr Persinger saying something to the effect that you can talk about things all you want, but until you can produce evidence via the scientific method, you don't really "know" anything.

[Zerdini]

Art wrote: I bet I'm right and after we cross over to the other side my beliefs will be vindicated.

I make no claim to anything but I will bet that you'll be wrong and you'll get a shock and, even worse, you won't be able to find a way to tell anyone how wrong you were!

Sandy is quite correct "you don't really 'know' anything".

[Bruce Siegel]

"until you can produce evidence via the scientific method, you don't really "know" anything."

Sandy, let me ask you this: If you wanted to reassure a friend about what happens after death and had the power to grant her only one of the following, which would you choose?

(a) a profound spiritual experience (like an NDE)
(b) a library of your favorite scientific books on the subject of survival

I myself would choose the former, though my preference would be to give her both. And maybe that's what you're saying?

[Sandy]

Bruce, I have been in that situation and I discussed my NDE with that friend. I know that what I was able to tell her about my personal experience meant more to her than any book could have.

That doesn't mean I don't think putting my experiences up for testing in a lab isn't important. I think it's very important. I like science. It isn't everything, but it's important to me.

[Bruce Siegel]

I just realized at least part of the reason why I would choose to give my friend the spiritual experience rather than the research. And let's assume, for the moment, that she's of a fairly skeptical nature.

If she had the experience, she'd certainly be open to checking out the research. But if she had only the research at her disposal . . . well, I think we all know how that scenario could play itself out.

[Bruce Siegel]

"Bruce, I have been in that situation and I discussed my NDE with that friend."

When it comes to ways of learning about the afterlife, that's almost a separate category in itself. Hearing someone you trust without question describe their NDE may not be quite as good as having your own, but it sure beats reading a book. Your friend was lucky.

Which reminds me: When I was first exploring NDEs, I joined West L.A. IANDS (as a founding member, actually). And while NDErs weren't the saints or supermen I hoped and half-expected they'd be (silly me), I did enjoy spending time with them, and tended to trust what they had to say.

Getting back to your original comment, the reason I responded to it was my frustration with people who think that science is the only way to learn about these things. (I know that's not the case with you.)

[Matt Rouge]

I read through the thread provided by Zerdini:

http://spiritualismlink.forumotion.com/t672-questions-for-david-thompson

Below the line are verbatim quotes from David Thompson. I find the thoughts here absolutely unacceptable. He sounds like a person who has convinced himself to accept no criticism whatsoever and is now living in a deluded state. It's scary.

---

"My thoughts are it matters not to me and I think to anyone else what type of materialisation is taking place, the truth is as our seances are held in the dark ,only spirit for sure can know what is taking place, and how anyone else can have an informed opinion I cant understand."

"Personally I feel the distinction between what is and what is not materialisation is unimportant, the fact that there is communication is a wondeful thing.When people become two focused upon aspects that in the great scheme of things do no matter, they miss the true meaning of what they should be doing, and that is giving of themselves 100% to do spirits work.”

"As a medium who is always developing my ability of Physical Mediumship, I work only under the guidance of the circle guides and dont listen to the uniformed persons who often have an opinion without really knowing themselves what is happening. My task as a developing medium is to try and prove that life continues after death, not to pander to the people who are quick to criticise and often have no ability of Physical Mediumship themselves."

"People will always have their opinion on my mediumship because I do demonstrate in public, well that is one of the aspects of working in the public eye, I understand that and except it.
The one thing I learnt from spirit in the early years of my development, is never listen to the living worlds thoughts on my mediumship but only listen to the spirit world, this advise has served me well over the years and advise I will always follow."

"I will not answer questions from people who have their own agenda, and one that is of an unspiritual nature."

[Art]

I remember hearing John Edward say on Crossing Over one time, when talking about he does, "it is what it is." Edward doesn't like to defend what he does. I guess meaning that each person is free to examine it and make up their own mind.

[Zerdini]

@Art

John Edward doesn't do physical mediumship.

He does mental mediumship. He has nothiong to defend. The evidence he gives is either correct or it isn't.

[Art]

There is a plethora of stories out there about life after death. Mystical and transcendental experiences, NDE's, death bed visions, some Mediums, EVP, etc. My point is that everyone, each individual, is free to read and evaluate the available evidence and make up their own mind about what they believe. When you get right down to it is irrelevant what anyone else believes. What is important to me is what do I believe? Not that I believe belief matters. I'm betting that the Creator of the Universe was so smart that He/She was able to create a Universe where every soul learns what it is supposed to learn regardless of who we are, or where we live, or what we believe.

[Matt Rouge]

I basically agree, Art.