The desert and the sea

We often think of the afterlife as consisting of every possible environment. Yet in fact the range of habitats seems to be somewhat limited. If we can judge by reports -- both from near-death experiencers and mediums -- the most common environment, overwhelmingly, is a garden. Meadows and fields are also frequently reported. Houses are usually described as occupying large plots, rather than being built close together. Cities do make an appearance, but they are encountered far less often than rustic environments.

Completely absent, as far as I can tell, is the desert. I know of no NDEs or channeled information suggesting that discarnate souls live in desert conditions -- despite the fact that, on earth, there are many people who love the desert and wouldn't live anywhere else.

Perhaps a more surprising omission is the ocean. Certainly for living people, the ocean exerts an undeniable fascination. Herman Melville took note of this in the famous opening pages of Moby-Dick.

If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.

There now is your insular city of the Manhattoes, belted round by wharves as Indian isles by coral reefs -- commerce surrounds it with her surf. Right and left, the streets take you waterward. Its extreme down-town is the battery, where that noble mole is washed by waves, and cooled by breezes, which a few hours previous were out of sight of land. Look at the crowds of water-gazers there.

Circumambulate the city of a dreamy Sabbath afternoon. Go from Corlears Hook to Coenties Slip, and from thence, by Whitehall northward. What do you see? -- Posted like silent sentinels all around the town, stand thousands upon thousands of mortal men fixed in ocean reveries. Some leaning against the spiles; some seated upon the pier-heads; some looking over the bulwarks of ships from China; some high aloft in the rigging, as if striving to get a still better seaward peep. But these are all landsmen; of week days pent up in lath and plaster -- tied to counters, nailed to benches, clinched to desks. How then is this? Are the green fields gone? What do they here?

But look! here come more crowds, pacing straight for the water, and seemingly bound for a dive. Strange! Nothing will content them but the extremest limit of the land; loitering under the shady lee of yonder warehouses will not suffice. No. They must get just as nigh the water as they possibly can without falling in. And there they stand -- miles of them -- leagues. Inlanders all, they come from lanes and alleys, streets and avenues, -- north, east, south, and west. Yet here they all unite. Tell me, does the magnetic virtue of the needles of the compasses of all those ships attract them thither?

Many relaxation exercises ask you to imagine yourself lying on a beach and listening to the gentle rhythm of the surf. It's clear that in many people's minds the seashore is closely associated with bliss. Personally, if I were asked to describe an ideal paradise environment, I would think of an unspoiled stretch of tropical shoreline, the kind of spot that might be found in Hawaii or Tahiti.

Yet I know of no NDEs that take place on the beach or near an ocean. The same is true of channeled communications. In fact, in Helen Greaves' channeled book Testimony of Light, the communicator explicitly says at one point that while she has found a variety of delightful locales in the afterlife, she has not seen the sea. At that point her guide allows her to visit the ocean on earth -- which seems to suggest that this particular environment cannot be found in the afterlife. Lakes and streams are not infrequently reported, but as far as I know, the ocean never is.

If the various accounts of the afterlife were purely the product of fantasy, one might reasonably expect some of those fantasies to include the desert or the ocean. As far as I can tell, none of them do. Perhaps this argues that there is an underlying reality to these reports.

This still leaves the question of why the desert and the sea have been omitted from the geography of the next world. The only tentative answer I can suggest is that both environments involve wide open spaces, and perhaps in a world consisting of consensual thought forms, it is simply not possible to have a great deal of open, essentially undeveloped space. Perhaps the natural tendency is for people's imaginative projections to fill up that space with life and activity, so that a vast expanse of sparsely vegetated land or a huge stretch of open water cannot be established, or at least cannot be maintained for long.

Whatever the reason, it's surprising to think that there could be any limitations on environments constructed out of the raw material of thought.

Comments

[Vitor]

How can you be more convinced than you were earlier when you were certain lol?

If I had to wager that Flint was a fraud, I would put more money now than before. Only this.

[Vitor]

a judgment of her mediumship by the SPR was never rendered. Does the fact that Wreidt never submitted to investigation by the SPR negate her mediumship?

Maybe. Did a member of SPR asked her to do a seance in controlled conditions? If not, there is no reason to suspicion. If no one invited her, we can't blame her. But if there was an invitation to scientific experiments and she refused, like in Flint's case, there is a good reason to be suspicious. That's what I think.

The same question might be asked of Emily French and John Sloan, two mediums of unquestionable integrity. There is an entire line of mediumship that lies
outside the record of SPR activity.

I don't know about them, but in Brazil Chico Xavier was said to be of unquestionable integrity too. He never accepted money for his seances (but he accepted presents), but he also refused scientific investigations (although there were very few invitations). He was not a bad person, he gave much money to charity, but he was a fraud.

[Vitor]

More and more I get conviced that you are a fraud. Prove me wrong,

Well, what do you mean by that? My existence is a fraud? My research is a fraud? In any case, just tell me what could prove that you are wrong, then I will try to prove that you are wrong. What kind of evidence do you need?

[John C.]

RE:don't you think too suspicious that Leslie Flint get better results only when the infra red equipament failed? What makes impossible that Leslie Flint had himself damage the equipament? - comment from Vitor

Vitor: Many years ago, my sister went for a sitting with a medium in Glasgow. She took a tape recorder with her to tape the session. The medium told her, that generally, electrical equipment does not function properly when she is giving readings. My sister decided to try it anyways. She turned it on to record and the medium did not have any contact with it during the session. When my sister got home and played it, the tape had garbled noises similar to cartoon character speech - the speech was fast and you could not decipher what was being said. The tape and recorder were checked before my sister left home and everything was working fine. After listening to the garbled noises, we advanced the tape and tried recording again and it worked fine. Some type of energy, during the session, affected the recording. What was it?

To accuse Lesle Flint of fraud because of a malfunction of the infra-red camera, without proof, is not ethical. You would have to have been there and checked out the equipment before and after. It is not right to make accusations when the Leslie is not there to defend himself.

[John C.]

"We often think of the afterlife as consisting of every possible environment. Yet in fact the range of habitats seems to be somewhat limited."

"Perhaps a more surprising omission is the ocean. Certainly for living people, the ocean exerts an undeniable fascination."

Michael:
To quote from Arthur Findlay's book, "The Way of Life" regarding to your reference to
the lack of oceans, Findlay speaks of this in his book when his sister-in-law told me this about what we call water.
"Our world is very much like yours. When I arrived first of all I saw this beautiful little waterfall and put my hand under the water. When I pulled my hand away it was quite dry, and I did not feel the water. When we bathe in our "sea" we get all the pleasure and exhilaration of bathing, but we are never wet, and come out of the water quite dry."

Perhaps the life experiences of the people who cross over and attempt to communicate determine whether they mention gardens, deserts or water.

[W Vogt]

Vitor: I am trying to understand your position, but to be frank I am having some difficulty. What I am coming up with is that it seems that you believe that there is a dispassionate, independent source of judgment to whom we can turn to decide if a medium is to be believed or not The identity of this source of judgment is not clear, but mostly it seems to be the SPR in what you are saying. Backing up this source in your way of thinking is scientific testing, administered by I know not who.
What I was arguing, admittedly not too lucidly, is that there is no such base of impersonal judgment that we can turn to. I think that the history of the SPR is checkered. Already back in the nineteenth century the spiritualists were abandoning ship wholesale, creating a split in the movement because they thought the organization was too skeptical. Later there were the defections of prominent individuals such and Sir Arthur Conan Coyle and Dennis Bradley, who didn’t like the way the SPR saw things.
So where are we to turn? Do you really believe that there is a beacon out there, a shining, guiding light that can administer tests, impartially, without prejudice, which will separate the true mediums from the false?

[John C.]

Michael:
Just one final quote on this subject.

"Later that same evening the same voice confirmed the foregoing in these words:
"We do not live in a dream world. As I have said, we live in a real tangible world, though the atoms composing it differ from the atoms which make up your world. Our minds act on this tangible substance in a way yours cannot do on your world. You live in a world of slower vibrations."

"So you do not live in a world of your own," I said, to which my informant replied:

"Everyone lives in a world of his or her own, you do and so do I, but if you mean can each of us see and feel the same things, I answer, Yes. All in the same plane can sense the same things. We have the same world as you have, but in a finer state." (pg.122)

These seances were held sometime between 1918 - 1945. Findlay has two stenographers specially trained to work in the dark for accuracy purposes as everything the spirits communicated was recorded verbatim. No one has challenged Findlay about the authenticity of his research.

I find that the information communicated was easily understood and consistent with other reports regarding the afterlife.

[John C.]

These seances were held sometime between 1918 - 1945. Findlay has two stenographers specially trained to work in the dark for accuracy purposes as...

Please correct "Findlay has two sentographers" to read as "Findlay had two stenographers". Sorry for the typo.John

[Vitor]

Hi, John

this is my opinion. There are many articles accusing brilliant scientists of fraud, and since they are already dead, they can't defend themselves. For example, you must know books and articles accusing Crookes of fraud. I don't think this is unnethical. It's very important to review theses cases from another point of view.

In this site

http://www.badpsychics.co.uk/thefraudfiles/modules/news/article.php?storyid=20

the author compared Gandhi's voice and the voice of Gandhi' spirit by Leslie Flint and considered the two very different. Unfortunely the two are not more online, but in the time many wrote saying that the voices were very different. It's very interesting to read the comments.

[Art]

In the January 2010 issue of New Scientist Magazine there is an article titled "Our world may be a giant hologram." What these physicists found was this "blurriness" at the smallest levels of our universe. Then the director of lab, a guy named Hogan, said that there is a certain degree of blurriness in a holographic projection. He said if he believed what these scientists found was proof of the holographic nature of our universe.

Why I think this is interesting is because many near death experiencers say is that while they were on the other side that it looked even more real than this life and that they experienced even more consciousness than normal.

I used to wonder how that was possible? How could it be even more clear and real than this side? But, if you read the article in New Scientist magazine and then read those NDE's that claim it's even more real than this side, the pieces of the puzzle fit together perfectly. The other side is the holographic film from which this side is projected from.

As strange as it may seem, our universe is a holographic projection, and I have a high degree of confidence it is true.

[Paul]

It is unethical to accuse a person of fraud without producing evidence to support it. So far Vitor you have stated fraud as a fact from a failure to respond to an invitation to be investigated - this is not the only potential explanation (and I would say is especially unreasonable since Flint did submit to investigation on a number of occasions).

Your inferred fraud when equipment failed under controlled conditions even though it did not alter the content of the investigation, only the volume of the voice. This seems to me illogical.

You suggest fraud is the likely cause of an interruption to a DV sitting during a thunderstorm. In this instance I have less of an issue as you only say it is is suspicious, which is a reasonable observation to make. You do not however make any reference to WHAT was communicated before the interruption.

The objection I have isn't that you suggest fraud as a possibility - that is obviously a the case in ANY test. My objection is that you are so dogmatic about it with so little evidence to support your position.

[Paul]

As a general observation, making unsubstantiated accusations of fraud about a living person might result in a libel suit. That's how unethical it is.

[Zerdini]

Vitor said:

"More and more I get conviced that you are a fraud. Prove me wrong,"

Well, what do you mean by that? My existence is a fraud? My research is a fraud? In any case, just tell me what could prove that you are wrong, then I will try to prove that you are wrong. What kind of evidence do you need?

That's easy to answer. lol.

I mean exactly the same as you said about Flint.

You haven't supplied any evidence of your existence. A birth certificate could be a fake.

Testimony about your existence is anecdotal.

By your own admittance you haven't done any research on Leslie Flint therefore your resarch is a fraud.

The evidence I need is the same as you have about Flint.

You haven't submitted to scientific testing nor have you been vetted by the SPR.

It's quite simple: Moura is a fraud.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Vitor]

It is unethical to accuse a person of fraud without producing evidence to support it.

So when West published his article accusing Flint of fraud he was being unethical? I don't think so. West showed indirect evidence. That's enough.

As a general observation, making unsubstantiated accusations of fraud about a living person might result in a libel suit. That's how unethical it is

James Randi accused Uri Geller of fraud. This resulted in a libel suit, but Geller loose. And Randi never showed direct evidence, as far I know.

[Vitor]

You haven't supplied any evidence of your existence. A birth certificate could be a fake.

Me and my family could do a DNA's exame what would legitimate the birth certificate. Of course, you pay it... :-)

[Zerdini]

Vitor wrote: Me and my family could do a DNA's exame what would legitimate the birth certificate. Of course, you pay it... :-)

A group of people with the same DNA would not be evidence of your existence, Vitor.

I don't believe you exist as you have not provided any evidence, just hearsay... :-)

[Vitor]

A group of people with the same DNA would not be evidence of your existence, Vitor.

Unless my mother and father are clones, they don't have the SAME dna. The dna would show that I am their son. Unless you says that the birth certificate of my mother and father are false too (and the birth certificate of my grandmother and grandfather... we could go on and on in this...) the dna 's exame clearly would legitimate my existence.

I don't believe you exist as you have not provided any evidence, just hearsay... :-)

You must say what you would accepted like evidence. If had you did a register in a infra-red video-camera of the phenomena, I would accept this like evidence. But it seems there is no medium who accept this condition...

[Paul]

Vitor

If you are suggesting that because someone fails to undergo a test you would like to carry out that permits you to accuse them of fraud you are mistaken. In Court you would have to do more than simply imply fraud.

In fact, as you rightly point out, Flint never responded to the invitation. I can think of at least half a dozen potential reasons, including fraud, but they would all be guesswork. In addition Flint was investigated many times under controlled conditions. I can see no reason why Flint is obliged to undergo examination by anyone in particular however he was examined on many occasions.

Whether you think it is unethical to accuse a person of fraud without attesting evidence (we have already covered why what you said isn't evidence as there are clearly a number of possible alternative explanations which you have not considered in your comments) is no less valid than my own opinion which is that it is highly unethical.

Also it is one thing to 'suggest fraud may be the case'. It is quite another to state it plainly as a fact as you have.

I don't think we are going to make any progress on this. It is a shame as in the past I have considered your contributions on here to be interesting and they appeared to be well thought through. Not on this occasion alas.

[Zerdini]

Vitor: You must say what you would accepted like evidence. If had you did a register in a infra-red video-camera of the phenomena, I would accept this like evidence. But it seems there is no medium who accept this condition...

Leslie Flint did a number of test seances under controlled conditions one of which was on the premises of the SPR. They used infra red telescopes and throat microphones and still you won't accept it so why should I accept that you exist. You have not provided any evidence that you are not a fraud.

[Vitor]

If you are suggesting that because someone fails to undergo a test you would like to carry out that permits you to accuse them of fraud you are mistaken. In Court you would have to do more than simply imply fraud.

In this case, why James Randi never loose to Uri Geller in Court? Could you explain this to me?

In fact, as you rightly point out, Flint never responded to the invitation. I can think of at least half a dozen potential reasons, including fraud, but they would all be guesswork.

Fraud seems the most probable. You just have to know the history of spiritualism and/or parapsychology to see this.

In addition Flint was investigated many times under controlled conditions.

But never with infra-red video camera.

I can see no reason why Flint is obliged to undergo examination by anyone in particular however he was examined on many occasions.

Because infra-red video camera is a better equipament which allows better conditions of control and register.

Whether you think it is unethical to accuse a person of fraud without attesting evidence (we have already covered why what you said isn't evidence as there are clearly a number of possible alternative explanations which you have not considered in your comments) is no less valid than my own opinion which is that it is highly unethical.

It is not unethical. I am pretty sure of this. In this moment I am writing a paper which will show that Nina Kulagina was a fraud. She was never caught in fraud, but there is so much indirect evidence of fraud that this explanation is the most probable. These literature's review are very important and a scientist can't be considered unethical for this.

Also it is one thing to 'suggest fraud may be the case'. It is quite another to state it plainly as a fact as you have.

This is my opinion. I will put my opinion in my paper about Nina too.

I don't think we are going to make any progress on this. It is a shame as in the past I have considered your contributions on here to be interesting and they appeared to be well thought through. Not on this occasion alas.

Let's agree in disagree. You think is unethical, I don't think so. Science has to be open to new ideas.

[Vitor]

Leslie Flint did a number of test seances under controlled conditions one of which was on the premises of the SPR. They used infra red telescopes and throat microphones and still you won't accept it.

I want infra-red video-cameras because they can give to us better registers.

You have not provided any evidence that you are not a fraud.

You still don't said to me what you will accept like evidence. I don't have the gift of telepathy to know what you will accept like evidence...

[felipe]

I don't believe VITOR is a fraud at all..:-)

Vitor means well.....he just has a much better grasp on what constitutes acceptable evidence for the afterlife, than a basic grasp of group social skills.

I think the issue is the persistent use of the word "fraud".

Vitor - much like you addressed the author of this blog for Months as "PRESCOTT" - until a bunch of people sort of kinda gently suggested a more polite reference might be his first name.....why not try to subsitute the word FRAUD for something a bit less irksome or confrontational?

You can say - "not really believable to me" - or - "suspicious" - "or not convincing" - or "not credible" or something that just feels a bit less heavy.

Just a thought. Keep up the good work otherwise..:-)

[Vitor]

Ok, Felipe

I said sometimes that this was only my opinion, and that certain things were suspicious to me... but you're right, I should be less confrontational.

Best wishes, and thanks for the words!

[Zetetic_chick]

Vitor - much like you addressed the author of this blog for Months as "PRESCOTT" - until a bunch of people sort of kinda gently suggested a more polite reference might be his first name

Then to be more polite, let's call Michael simply as "Mike" or "buddy".

Just kidding :-)

On the "impasse" between Zerdini and Vitor (both of them valuable contributors for this blog and people to whom I have a great respect), I'd suggest:

-Leave aside references about personal matters. It is not of help at all.

-I suggest the impasse is caused by two factors 1;)an implicit difference on epistemology or theory of knowledge; and 2)a difference on the weight of the presumption of fraud in spiritualism.

As a scientist, Vitor is mostly interested in good and valid scientific evidence (good controls, replication if possible, elimination of any possibility of tricks, testing by reliable researchers, etc.).

Zerdini gives more epistemic weight to personal, first-hand experience.

It doens't mean that Vitor doesn't care about personal experiences, but he give them a lot of less evidential value than scientific testing under controlled conditions.

It doesn't mean that Zerdini gives no credit to scientific testing of mediums; but his own personal experiences is evidentially strong enough to warrant the conclusion that Flint wasn't a fraud.

The impasse cannot be solved if a previous agreetment about this epistemic difference is not reached.

So perhaps you should discuss about this aspect before you continue with the discussion.

-The second assumption that causes the impasse is the weight of the pressumption of fraud in spiritualism.

Vitor and Zerdini (and everybody here) agree that there are fraudulent mediums given the history of spiritualism. So the preumption of fraud is warranted.

But Vitor gives a stronger weight than Zerdini to the presumption of fraud.

For Vitor, if a medium doesn't want to be tested under controlled conditions, it counts as evidence that the medium is possibly a fraud. (Maybe the medium is not, but the presumption of fraud works against him)

Zerdini seesm to give a lesser weight to the presumption of fraud, so the medium who reject being tested is not, by that fact alone, suspected of a possible fraud.

Again, the impasse cannot be resolved if previously you don't agree on common validation criteria to judge the weight of the presumption of fraud in spiritualism.

Summarizing Vitor and Zerdini positions as I see them:

Vitor: Psychics and mediums who reject being tested are (very probably) fraud given the presumption of fraud in spiritualism, unless scientific evidence is presented that refutes such presumption.

Zerdini: Psychics and mediums who reject being tested are not frauds, unless you provide evidence they're. So the presumption of fraud doesn't work in these cases, because you have to have some specific evidence for that presumption in particular case.

If you don't agree on these basic assumptions of your positions, you're basically talking pass each other.

[Paul]

I think that is a pretty good summary ZC. In answer to Vitor's question about Randi and Geller - since I don't know what evidence was adduced in Court (or if it even reached Court) it is hard to comment. I do remember in the case of Helen Duncan that she offered to demonstrate her phenomena to the Court and it refused to see it. She was convicted.

The evidence you have adduced so far to support your statement that Flint was a fraud is purely circumstantial and even then doesn't properly consider other explanations - that doesn't seem very scientific or even logical to me.

I am happy to let the matter rest as you suggest.

[Paul]

As an aside ZC I think you may have overstated Zerdini's position. I don't think he is saying that 'mediums are not frauds unless you can provide evidence'. I think he is saying if you are going to suggest fraud might be a reason then explain why; if you are saying fraud is a FACT as Vitor did, then you must provide evidence to support it.

[Art]

It is irrelevant what anyone else thinks or believes because I am a separate, unique, individual. The bottom line is what do I think or believe?

[Sandy]

I honestly can't blame mediums for not wanting to be tested by scientists. I know that some mediums, like many NDErs, feel that their experiences are what they are. Putting them in a lab for analysis seems to demean those experiences somehow. And not all scientists are very pleasant to work with. There is a loss of privacy to consider as well.

Personally, I think working with scientists to learn about these experiences is a good thing. That may be my own bias because my background is in science. But I wouldn't just work with anyone. I'd want to feel secure that I was working with ethical, well-qualified researchers.

[Zetetic_chick]

I think he is saying if you are going to suggest fraud might be a reason then explain why

But that's exactly what I said, Paul: "Psychics and mediums who reject being tested are not frauds, unless you provide evidence they're. So the presumption of fraud doesn't work in these cases, because you have to have some specific evidence for that presumption in particular case."

I'm not saying that Zerdini consider all the mediums are real, until proven wrong.

What I'm saying is that for Zerdini, if you don't provide evidence of fraud or explain why the medium is a fraud, you have no reason to think the medium is a fraud.

This is what I meant with "Psychics and mediums who reject being tested are not frauds, unless you provide evidence they're"

In fact, you said "I don't think he is saying that 'mediums are not frauds unless you can provide evidence, but inmediately you assert "I think he is saying if you are going to suggest fraud might be a reason then explain why

But explain "why" is precisely provide evidence and arguments for the accusation of fraud. Otherwise, the claim of fraud is without any foundation, and we're not entitled to consider that such medium is actually a fraud (regardless of whether he is a fraud or not). It would be Zerdini's position. (And this contrast with Vitor's view, for whom you don't need positive evidence of fraud to claim that a medium is a fraud. You only need 1)Consider the fraudulent background of spiritualism; 2)Have a presumption of fraud based on that background; 3)Know that typically fraudulent mediums don't accept beind tested under good conditions; and 4)Know that a particular medium "chicken away" from the controlled tests. For Vitor, this suffices to consider a medium a fraud until proven wrong)

This is why I said the impasse was caused, in part, by a difference on the weight of the presumption of fraud. This is a purely epistemological problem.

Sometimes, a impasse can be caused by a commitment to a ontological position.

A naturalist, for instance, would reject the claim "this medium is real" even if good evidence is found: the reason is that naturalism implies the impossibility of an afterlife, and the probability of a medium being real is, a priori, lower than fraud.

Suppose a positive evidence, and replication, for mediumship is found. Given naturalism, all the following circunstances are more likely than the afterlife:

-The researchers were fooled.

-The independent researchers who made the replication were fooled too.

-The researchers are covert spiritualists.

-No evidence of fraud was found, but it is not impossible to find it in the future (This is Ray Hyman's style of argument to dismiss evidence for psi: "The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present... it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental series is completely free from possible flaws. An experimenter cannot control for every possibility--especially for potential flaws that have not yet been discovered")

If you begin from the assumption that naturalism is true, all the above options are more likely than the existence of an afterlife or immaterial spirits. And given Hume's argument, you're entitled to reject even the best evidence for mediumship.

With almost an absolute certainty, we can say that a naturalist would appeal to Hume's argument against miracles to dismiss even the best evidence for afterlife, given the probability of afterlife is zero given naturalism and any imaginary fraud scenario is always more probable than the afterlife.

The ontological commitment implies an epistemology that provide powerful resources for dismiss, explain away or distortion the evidence for the afterlife, when the evidence is incompatible with the ontological naturalistic assumptions.

This even operates unconsciously. It's so obvious that an afterlife cannot exist (given naturalism) that obviously some mundane naturalistic explanation has to exist, and fraud or delusion is always more likely to be true.

If it's correct, we can easily predict that this would cause an unsolved impasse discuss these questions with a naturalist(and this is exactly what we found in discussions with materialists and naturalists) due to the epistemological and ontological commitments and criteria of evaluation, desgined to discard or rationalize evidence for the afterlife

This is why there is not point in arguing with naturalists about the afterlife. It's literally a waste of time.

This is not the case of Vitor, who accepts some mediums are real. But the point is that he has different epistemological assumptions than Zerdini.

Anyway, if Zerdini thinks that there is something wrong in my interpretation of his view, he could correct me.

My purpose was to help to clarify the discussion between Zerdini and Vitor.

[Paul]

Hi ZC
I think what you wrote did encapsulate what difference between Vitor and Zerdini.

I believe I understand the point you made about the impasse created by people with different perspectives.

However, if I say to you 'why do you think X is a fraud' and you say 'because he wouldn't let Y examine him' - on it's own I can see how it is reasonable for anyone to make a negative inference. However in the matter under discussion at the time ie Flint,the subject did not make any response at all; we do not know why; we know Flint was investigated many times; we know he was never accused of fraud other than in the instance cited. So to say he MAY have been fraudulent is technically and logically correct to but to say he certainly WAS a fraud is logically incorrect based on the information we have. That was my principle disagreement with Vitor. I still hold that view. His certain conclusion is not logical based on the facts he presented unless we assume mediumship is impossible which, as you rightly point out, Vitor does not.

I don't want to re-open the discussion with Vitor because it isn't likely to be fruitful and we have agreed to differ, however I wanted to make my position clear.

On a different point it sometimes appears to me that a great deal of the discussion here is between parties who have never witnessed any of the phenomena so ardently debated. I must admit I am puzzled that when one has the opportunity to discuss such phenomena with a person such as Zerdini, who has many years of direct personal experience and who has seen so much, so little interest seems to be shown. He is in a position to give factual information about the circumstances and controls in place when such phenomena were demonstrated.

[RabbitDawg]

Michael, I think that any critique of your observation about the lack of desert and ocean scene's in NDE's is sorta petty.

For example, isn't it odd that most people encountered in NDE's are already deceased? Sure, there are very rare instances of encounters with the living, but when it happens, it tends to occur in children's NDE's. Also, the living person encountered is also usually an authority figure, like a teacher. It most likely has something to do with easing the transition. Still, the stat's are pretty astounding.

Just about anything in reality has an exception to the rule, and sweating about the lack of 100% consistency isn't worth the dance that we often find ourselves in while catering to appease the skeptic's.

Perhaps it's the exception like desert's, ocean's and encounters with the living that is that is the real hallucination.

[Michael Prescott]

"I am puzzled that when one has the opportunity to discuss such phenomena with a person such as Zerdini, who has many years of direct personal experience and who has seen so much, so little interest seems to be shown. He is in a position to give factual information about the circumstances and controls in place when such phenomena were demonstrated."

I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but ...

One reason why some people may not always be willing to take Zerdini's eyewitness accounts at face value has to do with his involvement in a test of the physical medium Colin Fry, many years ago.

Fry was secured to a chair and the lights were turned off. In the dark a faintly glowing trumpet was seen to hover in midair. Suddenly (for reasons unknown) the lights came on, revealing that Fry was out of the chair, holding the trumpet in his hand and making it appear to fly around.

Details are here:

http://www.tonyyouens.com/psychic_news.htm

Now, it seems clear enough that Fry was caught red-handed. However, he claimed that an evil or mischievous spirit had taken possession of him and forced him to cheat against his will. The investigators, who included Zerdini, accepted this explanation and continued to say that Fry was an honest medium with genuine abilities.

If even catching the medium with his hand in the cookie jar (so to speak) isn't enough to discredit him, what is?

I know this is a sore spot with Zerdini and I feel a little guilty about even bringing it up, but it does strike me as the kind of incident that, at the very least, should have discredited Fry as a physical medium. Yet unless I am mistaken, Zerdini still says that Fry is genuine and that he was not really cheating. In fact, the last time I mentioned this, he became quite peeved with me for saying that Fry had cheated. Ge insisted that there was no evidence of cheating at all.

But if getting out of the restraints, leaving the chair, and moving the trumpet by hand does not constitute cheating, then what does?

So you can see how even eyewitness testimony can be problematic in these cases.

[Michael Prescott]

"Ge insisted" = "He insisted."

But you already knew that.

[Paul]

I am concious that my comments are taking this thread miles off course, so apologies.

I agree that eye-witness testimony can be difficult to assess. All the evidence we are likely to get of these types of phenomena is eye-witness testimony isn't it? I don't think even IR recordings would convince many these days unless we were personally present. I presume you mean uncorroborated eye-witness testimony.

Irrespective of Zerdini's explanation of the Colin Fry incident I don't think that precludes asking him specific questions if there is a genuine interest - unless you think he would not tell the truth?

In the example you quote, Zerdini has given his explanation for the situation you mention. I think in other places he has explained the background to it and folks can decide for themselves whether or not the explanation is acceptable. It is possible the the explanation given is the correct one, however suspicious it looks. The likelihood of this explanation being correct is a matter of conjecture, at least for me, as I have so little experience of these matters directly.

If Zerdini's explanation is correct then it was not Colin Fry that cheated, perhaps that is what Zerdini meant.

In any event I cannot understand why there is so little interest in Zerdini's experiences given the breadth of them and the period of time covered.

[Paul]

Please take it as read that I spotted all the spelling and grammatical mistakes and assumed you would understand what I meant :)

[Keith Augustine]

With almost an absolute certainty, we can say that a naturalist would appeal to Hume's argument against miracles to dismiss even the best evidence for afterlife, given the probability of afterlife is zero given naturalism and any imaginary mind-body separation scenario is always more probable than normal perception.

Nothing dogmatic in that statement ;)

Imagine if I had said: "With almost an absolute certainty, we can say that a survivalist interpretation of NDEs would appeal to anecdotes of veridical NDEs to dismiss even the best evidence that NDEs are hallucinations, given that the probability of NDEs being hallucinations is zero given a survivalist interpretation of NDEs, and any imaginary mind-body separation scenario is always more probable than normal sources of information."

Hume's argument against miracles, when yielded as a way to discount any potential evidence of a miracle, is indeed inappropriate. But it is also overly simplistic to think that any given naturalist must be committed to applying the argument in such a way. One could apply the argument, appropriately, merely when considering the balance of probabilities.

In my master's thesis, "A Defense of Naturalism," I wrote:

"For example, we have a great deal of evidence against people being able to walk on water. If we can assume that a reasonable person should accept (at least tentatively) the more reliable source of evidence when weighing conflicting sources, the evidence we have against an extraordinary claim will always outweigh any testimonial evidence for it that would not satisfy the scientific community or a consensus of historians[11]. However, uncontroversial evidence for an extraordinary claim could outweigh the evidence we have against it."

In other words, if there were outstanding evidence (not merely "suggestive" evidence), the balance of probabilities would no longer favor a natural/normal explanation. In that case, a naturalist, if he is to remain reasonable, would simply have to concede the falsification of naturalism.

You have no reason to assume that no naturalist would concede falsification when there is no doubt that falsification has occurred. If an astrophysicist who doubts that black holes exist can concede that they do exist when presented with undeniable evidence of their existence (as has happened), so can a naturalist. To those who don't agree with you, your statement smacks of rhetoric to fill in a gap that has not yet been filled with the undeniable evidence that should fill it.

[Ryan]

OK, just a quick comment...

Naturalism is such an interesting topic. It is the opposition to the horrible term "supernatural" that is the problem. That is not a scheme of thought that interests me so much i.e. having a category, "natural vs supernatural". Naturalism and physicalism are not synonyms, although they are often used that way. It seems there is a lot more elbow room in the former. And people with all kinds of sympathies to this data are looking for "naturalistic" explanations of one sort or another. Even some theologians are naturalists: an example being John Cobb Jnr, who acknowledges (to paraphrase) "Evolution teaches us human beings are fully a part of nature... and I am an evolutionist". Lots of thinkers have tried to work with this insight in their own way. And lots of interesting philosophers are not reductive physicalists regarding nature or our explanations of the world... but that does not mean they are "supernaturalists".

Like I say, just a quick comment, not much flesh on the bones, but I think it is an interesting question, how we use the term "naturalism"...

[Art]

If our Universe is a holographic projection from someplace else, as many physicists believe it to be, then whatever is "here" has to be "there". It is too long and complicated to type out here how a hologram is made but trying to make it as simple as possible, a holographic image is projected from a piece of holographic film which has the image embedded on it; so whatever is "here" must also be "there."

And since about 1/3 of near death experiencers describe their experience in terms that can only be described as "holographic" I suspicion that what the "soul" returns to after it is finished with the body is the original holographic film from which this side derives it's reality. So I reiterate, whatever is here has to be there.

But the physics of the other side will be very different than the physics of this side. This reminds me of a story I read about a little 11 year old girl that had a near death experience and was trying to describe to her father what heaven was like. She told him, "you know that show 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous?', well, heaven makes that look like living in poverty."

In a hologram, each piece contains the whole. If you break a holographic piece of film into a hundred pieces, you don't get separate images but instead each little piece of the film will contain the entire image of the original. All the information is spread throughout the entire hologram.

We don't live for just ourselves, but for every soul that has ever lived. The information we are learning and gathering will be shared with every soul that has ever lived or will ever live. Everything is interconnected in heaven. Each piece contains the whole. We are simply spiritual beings having a physical experience.

[Zerdini]

Vitor wrote: In this case, why James Randi never loose to Uri Geller in Court? Could you explain this to me?

In a 1989 interview with a Japanese newspaper, Randi was quoted as saying that Geller had driven a scientist to "shoot himself in the head" after finding out that Geller had fooled him. Randi afterwards claimed it was a metaphor lost in translation. However, in a previous interview with a Canadian newspaper, Randi said essentially the same thing; "One scientist, a metallurgist, wrote a paper backing Geller's claims that he could bend metal. The scientist shot himself after I showed him how the key bending trick was done." In 1990, Geller sued Randi in a Japanese court over the statements Randi had made in the Japanese newspaper. Randi claims that he could not afford to defend himself, therefore he lost the case by default. The court declared Randi's statement an "insult" as opposed to libel, and awarded a judgment against Randi for Yen 500,000 (at the time about US$4400).

Fraud seems the most probable. You just have to know the history of spiritualism and/or parapsychology to see this.

"In addition Flint was investigated many times under controlled conditions."

But never with infra-red video camera.

"I can see no reason why Flint is obliged to undergo examination by anyone in particular however he was examined on many occasions."

Because infra-red video camera is a better equipament which allows better conditions of control and register.

Flint was tested using the most up-to-date equipment at the time.

[Zerdini]

ZC - Thank you for your interesting summary of the main points of the difference between Vitor and myself.

I have been away for the weekend and have just seen your comment.

“Vitor and Zerdini (and everybody here) agree that there are fraudulent mediums given the history of spiritualism. So the presumption of fraud is warranted.”

From a long study of Spiritualism, and physical mediumship in particular, there were very few fraudulent mediums – no more so than in any other branch of Society. There is no logical reason for tarring all mediums with the brush of fraud.

Paul wrote: As an aside ZC I think you may have overstated Zerdini's position. I don't think he is saying that 'mediums are not frauds unless you can provide evidence'. I think he is saying if you are going to suggest fraud might be a reason then explain why; if you are saying fraud is a FACT as Vitor did, then you must provide evidence to support it.

Quite correct. I couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks.

Sandy wrote: Personally, I think working with scientists to learn about these experiences is a good thing. That may be my own bias because my background is in science. But I wouldn't just work with anyone. I'd want to feel secure that I was working with ethical, well-qualified researchers.

Perhaps at this stage I should make it quite clear - I have nothing against scientists per se. Sir William Crookes and Sir Oliver Lodge spring to mind.

Before I retired I worked in a research institution where the minimum scientific qualification was a Ph.D. I found that though they were well qualified to speak on their specialist field of interest many lacked what I call basic common sense. Taken out of their comfort zone they were like fish out of water.

[Zerdini]

MP wrote: I know I'm opening a can of worms here, but ...

One reason why some people may not always be willing to take Zerdini's eyewitness accounts at face value has to do with his involvement in a test of the physical medium Colin Fry, many years ago.

There is no 'can of worms' as far as I am concerned.

It is important to get the facts right, Michael.

There was never "a test of the physical medium Colin Fry, many years ago."

A seance was held for members of the Noah's Ark Society simply to allow members to experience a demonstration of physical mediumship.

There had been considerable pressure from members for a demonstration as up to that point there had only been reports from his home circle which was limited to six sitters and the occasinal invited guest.

With hindsight (a wonderful gift!) Colin should have never given a seance as he was still in the early days of his development.

I should also add that the lights were boxed in so that no-one could switch them on accidentally or otherwise. I sat by the lights and was as surprised as everyone else when they came on first dimly then gradually brighter as they were controlled by a dimmer switch.

I was not present as an 'investigator' but in my capacity, at that time, as Publicity Officer for the NAS.

As for Tony Youens he is well known as a sceptic and his article revealed nothing that hadn't already been published in "Psychic News" long before.

In fact I remember him advertising on his website for copies of the "Psychic News" when all he had to do was ring them and ask for a copy!

What I have stated, over and over again, is because of my experience of the anomalies in physical mediumship and other experiences with Colin, that have never been mentioned, there was no conscious cheating by Colin Fry. I stand by that.

Further it has nothing to do with eye witness testimony as there was nothing to see. My interest was in encouraging Colin Fry to provide evidence of survival rather than physical phenomena which, sadly, was what NAS members seemed to want.

He subsequently developed to the point where he stopped the phenomenal aspect and developed the independent Direct Voice which was able to produce a good level of survival evidence.

My research also discovered that a similar incident had happened during the mediumship development of the Rev. Stainton Moses when it was claimed that an evil or mischievous entity had intruded on a seance. It was not unknown which is why I refer to the anomalies and difficulties in physical mediumship.

Further, as far as 'eye witness' testimony is concerned the only testimony I have SEEN and mentioned on here is with the Welsh materialization medium, Alec Harris in Johannesburg.

Harris had an extremely rare gift and I count myself very fortunate to have experienced it.

[Art]

“Vitor and Zerdini (and everybody here) agree that there are fraudulent mediums given the history of spiritualism."
-----------------------------------------

Is it not possible that a person (medium) could be both real and unreal at the same time? Just like a book can contain information that is correct and incorrect at the same time? In fact, perhaps there is pressure to produce information, to put on a show, and if you get just a little information you might feel the need to embellish it and stretch it out, perhaps by adding to it your own ideas and beliefs of what you think the person might want to here.

It doesn't have to be "it's either all true or it's all lies!" Some of it can be true and some of it can be made up. And in the pressure to put on a show, to entertain, one might feel the need to give more than what is really there.

[John C.]

Hi Vitor,

Sorry that I have taken so long to answer you.

"the author compared Gandhi's voice and the voice of Gandhi' spirit by Leslie Flint and considered the two very different. Unfortunely the two are not more online, but in the time many wrote saying that the voices were very different. It's very interesting to read the comments."

I have listened to some of the recordings on Leslie Flint's website and noticed that some of the voices are very similar. One possible explanation for this could be that there wasn't enough energy (ie. ectoplasm) created for the communicators to work with when distinguishing between different personalities. An independent voice medium is more difficult than mental mediumship or trans mediumship. In Arthur Findlay's book, "The Way of Life", it gives a detailed description of the methods employed by the spirit communicators when creating the voice of the personalities that want to come through. I am sure that there are more knowledgeable people than I who will be able to explain this process in more detail. I have never experienced a dirct voice medium. I have dealt with trans mediums and mental mediums.

Regarding Zerdini, I am sure that with the amount of experience that he has, he was not easily misled and I am sure that he took his recording and shared it with his siblings and other family members and they could obviously identify the grandfather. If Zerdini was mistaken, it is highly likely that his relations would have corrected him. It must be assumed that this was a genuine recording.

Vitor, I was reading an article about a Brazilian doctor - Dr. Julio Peres - who tested 10 mediums from Brazil. Here is a link to his website and I would appreciate hearing your comments.

http://www.paranormalreview.com/health/doctors-probe-spirit-world-with-astonishing-results/

Also, I was wondering if you have heard of two Brazilian healers - one is Arigo - Surgeon of the Rusty Knife (he died in a acar accident in 1971 and the other one is "John of God" - http://www.johnofgod-healing.com

I would be interested in your opinions of these two individuals.

I hope that you have more opportunities to study mediums as I feel it is the only way that survival evidence can be proven. Unfortunately, you may come across 50 bad mediums before you find 1 good one. I wish you every success in your research.