It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s … super-psi!

Most people who look at mediumship and related phenomena in depth and with an open mind eventually reach the conclusion that non-paranormal explanations simply don’t cover all the evidence. Fraud and mistaken observation do account for some of the cases, but not for the strongest ones. 

 Nevertheless, the hypothesis of survival after death is not the only one that has been put forward to explain the data. A rival hypothesis is that of so-called “super-psi,” the idea that the medium’s unconscious mind is able to extract information from a variety of sources, integrate it into a consistent whole, and present it in the guise of the appropriate discarnate personality. The idea has been dubbed super-psi because, while relatively straightforward instances of telepathy and clairvoyance have been demonstrated repeatedly in the laboratory, nothing so elaborate and far-reaching has been proven to exist. 

If the super-psi hypothesis is correct, then the unconscious minds of at least certain gifted individuals have extraordinary capabilities; and there is probably no reason to think that the same capabilities are not latent or dormant in the rest of us. Our unconscious, then, would have the ability (actually or potentially) to reach at will into other minds, regardless of how widely scattered they might be, and even if the minds in question belong to total strangers, people of whose existence we were and are consciously unaware. Moreover, our unconscious would have the ability to perceive, through clairvoyance, information unknown to any living person, peeking into hidden places without restriction and virtually instantaneously, on demand. It has even been hypothesized that the unconscious could peer back in time—retrocognition—or gaze into the future—precognition—in order to obtain additional information. And all of this extraordinary power would be deployed in the service of a charade–the illusion of communication with a specific deceased personality that has, in reality, ceased to exist. Even the medium herself would have not the slightest idea that her unconscious mind was carrying on this amazing deception on a colossal scale. 

What would be the motivation of the unconscious to undertake such a feat? It has been argued that the natural, all-too-human fear of death is so deep-seated that the unconscious will go to any lengths to suppress it, even to the extent of conducting a remarkably elaborate ruse. 

Now, if all this is true, then the unconscious mind is an almost infinitely greater thing than the conscious mind. Unlike the conscious mind, the unconscious would not be bound by material limits and would be able to interact with all other unconscious minds, as well as with the material world, deriving nuggets of information from a vast array of sources, past, present, and future. In effect, all the unconscious minds of the living would function very much like one giant unconscious that is constantly interacting with itself—a global mind spanning the species, which our ordinary waking minds would remain completely unaware of. 

Yet, if this were the case, it’s hard to understand why the deception would continue, or would ever have been necessary in the first place. Yes, apparent conversations with the deceased may provide some comfort and allay the fear of death—but wouldn’t it be far more comforting, persuasive, and useful for the unconscious simply to reveal the full range of its powers? Not only would this be of immense practical value in our earthly life, assisting us with all sorts ofd mundane difficulties and vastly enhancing our survival chances, but it would seem to hold out a reasonable probability of some kind of afterlife. As has often been observed, if the mind has such phenomenal power and scope, and is not subject to material constraints, then there seems to be no good reason why it could not survive the death of the body. The nearly limitless potential of the unconscious hypothesized by the super-psi idea—a mind that transcends time and space—ought to be far more reassuring and empowering than merely exchanging reminiscences, often of a trivial nature, with the shades of our departed loved ones. 

Why, then, would this global mind of ours be so secretive and duplicitous? Why would it use its enormous powers to dupe us into believing a childish lie? Why would it keep our own potential concealed from us, babying us with fantasies when the truth is so much greater?

Frankly, I just don’t see it. To me, the super-psi theory is fatally flawed. 

But if we accept the best mediumistic evidence and reject super-psi, we seem to be left with postmortem survival as the only alternative. At least, I can’t think of another option. Survival appears to be the only explanation that accounts for all the known facts; and it has the additional advantages of being the most parsimonious theory and the one that mediums themselves—who after all might be expected to have some idea of what they are doing—are most prone to believe. 

Comments

[Matt Rouge]

+1 Sandy.

[zerdini]

I know it's off topic, but just thought I’d mention that David Thompson has issued a full response to recent criticisms regarding his mediumship. I guess it’s relevant here in that his phenomena may be superpsi or part psi-based.

As a matter of interest as of this moment there have been 300 responses to the David Thompson article by Roy Stemman on the Spirit of PN site:

http://spiritofpn.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/david-thompson-seance-%e2%80%93-spirit-or-flesh/#comment-2972

[Michael Prescott]

The apparent motive? Randi's partner is foreign-born and allegedly stole an American citzen's identity so he could remain in the US.

As for "mean-spirited" ... I think it's a little cruel to take delight in the afflictions of another person, especially an octogenarian with serious health problems. I understand the temptation, but maybe it's best to follow the Golden Rule and do unto Randi as we would like others to do unto us. If I were in his position, I wouldn't want a bunch of strangers crowing about it in some blog.

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

"If I were in his position, I wouldn't want a bunch of strangers crowing about it in some blog."

I think the point is whether a blog post would be useful in the debate. Simply crowing about someone's misfortune might not be useful. However pointing out that this is possibly one more of the many deceptions perpetrated by media skeptics would be useful in showing the hypocrisy of them criticizing parapsychology. How can you trust anything they say? Apply their own rules (don't trust people who commit fraud) to them, and you can't rely on anything they writes.

One such skeptic is said to have admitted on tv that he is not altogether honest, a skeptical book "flim flam man" has been shown, by a prominent paranormal blogger and novelist, to be full of innacuracies. One skeptic was caught on film trying to bend a key mechanically to simulate psychokenesis. A skeptic was forced to retract inaccurate criticisms of a Rupert Sheldrake video and the skeptic never actually watched the video. A skeptic was almost laughed off at tv set when he couldn't reproduce the phenomena of mediumship through cold reading etc etc.

If all of these things were done by the same skeptic they might not be valid evidence during a trial for fraud but they might be relevant during a sentencing hearing.

[Michael Prescott]

"One such skeptic is said to have admitted on tv that he is not altogether honest"

I think that's kind of an urban legend. Randi's standard patter as part of his magic act was to introduce himself as a fraud, a con man, a trickster, etc. It was said humorously and was hardly intended as any sort of confession. Sometimes it is quoted as if it were a serious statement instead of a lighthearted well-rehearsed spiel.

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

"Sometimes it is quoted as if it were a serious statement instead of a lighthearted well-rehearsed spiel."

I the quote I am referring to is:

"I'm a charlatan, a liar, a thief, and a fake altogether. There is no question of it."

I agree this is not a remorseful statement. But I don't believe it was intended to be ironic or sarcastic. It is a simple statement of fact. That it is light-hearted does not, in my opinion, reduce its credibility. It only reinforces my point: he admits he is dishonest and doesn't see anything wrong with it.

Therefore I have to wonder why would anyone, particularly law enforcement officers, would believe anything such a person says?

[Michael Prescott]

That statement was part of Randi's act, so I wouldn't take it seriously. A magician's patter is just part of the overall entertainment. And of course all magicians are fakes and charlatans, in the sense that they are fooling the audience.

Actually the statement is consistent with Randi's general outlook. He's telling his audience not to be taken in by magic, because it's all an act. This is his attitude toward the paranormal also.

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

" That statement was part of Randi's act, so I wouldn't take it seriously."

How do you know he didn't say it as part of an interview rather than as part of an act?

I once tried to track down this quote and I found someone in a discussion forum (not necessarily a reliable source) wrote that it was said on the TV show PM Magazine, on July 1st, 1982. I can't find a lot of information about it. Do you know any more of the specific details?

[zerdini]

Actually the statement is consistent with Randi's general outlook. He's telling his audience not to be taken in by magic, because it's all an act. This is his attitude toward the paranormal also.

"James Randi has often remarked that the news and “infotainment” media are largely to blame for widespread belief in pseudoscience and the supernatural. Since our founding, one of the most important roles of the JREF has been to win ink and airtime for the skeptical perspective, and to challenge the perpetrators of scams and frauds on their own home court.

In the first nine months of 2011, the JREF has earned more media than in the last several years combined.

NPR, Forbes, and Wired covered our challenge to Homeopathy. Our Million Dollar Challenge Director Banachek debunked “performance bracelets” on the CBS Early Show. The Los Angeles Times and AOL News covered our “Pigasus Awards” for the year’s worst promoters of nonsense, bringing the skeptical movement’s criticisms of Dr. Oz and others into the mainstream. More than four million people watched the Primetime Nightline episode on “Psychic Powers”that prominently featured the JREF and our Million Dollar Challenge, and they learned how celebrity psychics like James Van Praagh ply their trade by cheating.

Now, the JREF has earned national coverage in Canada in advance of Randi’s tour of nine Canadian cities.

Through these stories and through radio appearances across the U.S. and around the world, we’re using the media to share our skeptical perspective with a wider audience than ever before.

James Randi is currently on his whirlwind lecture tour of Canada. In his unique and entertaining way, Randi will explain how even the most rational minds can be fooled by the same tricks used by magicians and conjurers for centuries. Our friends at CFI Canada are kindly hosting the tour, which will take Randi from Vancouver to Halifax, with stops in Kelowna, Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal along the way. Find out how you can attend here, and keep an eye on Randi.org and the JREF's Facebook and Twitter pages for updates from the road, including photos, blog posts, and videos."

This 'octogenarian with serious health problems' seems to be doing very well lately!

[Michael Prescott]

From the Wikipedia article on James Randi:

-----
Randi was once accused of actually using "psychic powers" to perform acts such as spoon bending. James Alcock relates this incident, which occurred at a meeting where Randi was duplicating the performances of Uri Geller: A professor from the University at Buffalo shouted out that Randi was a fraud. Randi said, "Yes, indeed, I'm a trickster, I'm a cheat, I'm a charlatan, that's what I do for a living. Everything I've done here was by trickery." The professor shouted back: "That's not what I mean. You're a fraud because you're pretending to do these things through trickery, but you're actually using psychic powers and misleading us by not admitting it."
-----

This is a bit different from what I remembered. I thought the line was a standard part of the patter for his stage act. Nevertheless the idea that Randi was impugning his own integrity is not borne out by the circumstances of the quote. He was clearly saying that he used trickery to fool the audience just as (he believes) psychics do.

[Art]

Some psychics do mix trickery with actual supernatural stuff. If their psy doesn't seem to be working they might resort to trickery. A guy's got to earn a living don't he?

I've had some mystical and transcendental experiences in my life but I've never been able to control it. They just happen when they happen. It's not under my control. Mostly when I'm zoning out, not thinking about anything.

[sbu]

So you defend the psy pretenders usage of trickery..because they have to earn for a living..? Where would the world be without sceptics? I wonder..

[Michael Prescott]

Art speaks only for himself on this one. And the Society for Psychical Research has unmasked many more fake psychics than all skeptics put together. As just one example, the three principal investigators of Eusapia Palladino in Naples (1908) had exposed more than 100 fake mediums before coming up against Eusapia. Most skeptics are armchair investigators; most of the exposures have come at the hands of actual researchers willing to work in the real world. (The biggest exception is Harry Houdini, who exposed many fake mediums, though his honesty and methods have been seriously questioned, and it is at least arguable that some of his exposures - notably Mina Crandon's -were themselves fraudulent.)

[Art]

I think most readings are a mixture of both. Just like the Bible. Some of it's real and some of it's hooey. Some of the information they get is from the Akashic records, some from spirits on the other side, and some of it comes from the mind of the Medium. It's a mixture.

I used to love to watch John Edward's crossing over. Every once in a while he'd say something that would blow me away and I'd wonder - where did that come from? And then sometimes he'd drone on about stuff that was common to everyone. Some of it was real. Some of the stuff he said was amazing. But sometimes he sounded like he was really reaching.

I still liked his show though. John Edwards is very charismatic, funny, and entertaining. He was definitely good at what he did. Every once in a while he'd hit a homerun too!

[Michael Prescott]

"Some of the information they get is from the Akashic records, some from spirits on the other side, and some of it comes from the mind of the Medium. It's a mixture."

That may be true, but conscious fraud is a different matter. I would not be so forgiving of intentional deception.

[Art]

When you hear this stuff all mish-mashed in your brain you might not know where it's coming from. It just appears. I heard a voice one time telling me what my wife was fixing to do and say and about a minute later she walked in the kitchen and said exactly what that voice told me she was going to say. It was actually pretty cool. Same thing when I used to have a lot of precognitive dreams. I liked it. Happened more before I started taking cholesterol and blood pressure medicine. I think maybe I had sleep apnea and sort of quit breathing for short periods while I was sleeping and maybe "mini-NDEs?"

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

Art wrote: "Some psychics do mix trickery with actual supernatural stuff. If their psy doesn't seem to be working they might resort to trickery. A guy's got to earn a living don't he?"

M Prescott wrote:
"Art speaks only for himself on this one. "

Michael, how many psychics/mediums have you been to? I have seen many professional psychics over the years perform at Spiritualist churches (and other places), some of whom have been tested by Gary Schwartz, and as someone who has sat in on classes with pro's, and chatted with them at social hour after sermons at church, I agree with Art (although a good medium can tell the difference between spirit communication and other types of psychic perception). One big problem is professional mediums who spin every reading in a way intended to generate repeat business. For example, some mediums always give upbeat positive readings. People love to get readings from them. If you are a medium in the same town, and you want to compete with them for customers, what are you going to do? (This is a general problem of capitalism: you have to cheat your customers if your competitors do and the customers don't care or know, otherwise you will go out of business.) Another problem is professional mediums who have fun toying with the emotions of the sitters.

Some of the best mediums are perpetual 'students' they show up at class every week but don't perform at church or give readings professionally, except occasionally at church fund raisers.

sbu wrote: "So you defend the psy pretenders usage of trickery..because they have to earn for a living..? Where would the world be without sceptics? "

I don't defend fraudulent psychics. Personally I don't think it is a great idea to be a professional medium since you can't control what comes through. However there are some pros who are good and ethical and I don't begrudge them earning a living using their innate talents like most people do. At fund raisers for Spiritualist churches the responsible churches have a policy that if nothing comes through you don't have to pay. How many professional psychics have this policy? I don't know?

I also don't defend fraudulent skeptics of which there are a great many. I think there are more believers in materialism who defend fraudulent skeptics (close to 100%) than there are skeptics of materialism who defend fraudulent mediums (close to 0%).

[jshgfcre98ijyds]

" I agree with Art"

Part of the problem is with the way mediumship is taught. I've been in classes with a good number of different teachers. In order to learn to access psychic perceptions, when you are giving a reading in class you are taught to say out loud everything that comes to mind. This means that as a beginning student you say a lot of stuff that isn't psychic as well as stuff that is psychic. As you get better, the percentage of psychic perceptions increases. However, the class environment has to be friendly and accepting or it will inhibit the student from being fully open which would stunt their development. This permissive environment in class tends to lead to a permissive attitude towards psychics who give readings that are not entirely psychic. I've been to several styles of classes and workshops for advanced students and I know this is true about the way advanced students are taught too.

I was very impressed with the methodology that the military remote viewers have for training and preforming remote viewing. They have a way of detecting non psychic information. They call it analytical overlay. They use an interviewer and psychic working together. I think the Spiritualist community could learn a lot if they would send a few mediums to a good remote viewing school.

[Michael Prescott]

Jsh, my disagreement with Art is that I would not be so cavalier about conscious, intentional fraud. Note that conscious fraud is different from making an innocent mistake about the source of the information.

[Art]

"So, for a moment, you see. Relax. Don't take yourself so seriously! All is well. We are forever one."
excerpt from Riding the Dragon,
http://www.issc-taste.org/arc/dbo.cgi?set=expom&id=00070&ss=1
--------------------------------------------

To be honest I don't take life so seriously. We are only here for a little while and it will all be over soon! Sometimes it hits me I'm 58 years old and I wonder "where have the years gone?" Especially after age 50. Man, they really start whizzing by then!

By the way, I love the above "mystical experience" because it has a real holographic flavor to it. It must be true!

[zerdini]

I agree, Michael. Conscious intentional fraud cannot be condoned.

True mediumship is very rare.

Psychics abound.

The problem is that most people cannot tell the difference.

The media is mainly responsible lumping them all together under a single heading.

True mediumship is about evidence of survival of the human personality.

All else is a distraction.

[sbu]

True mediumship is about evidence of survival of the human personality.

All else is a distraction.

well spoken.

[Mery]

Are you familiar with this paper?

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_06_2_braude.pdf