An end to hedging

I received a copy of Chris Carter's new book Science and the Afterlife Experience the other day. (It was a review copy–i.e., a freebie. Yes, there are some perks to running a blog about paranormal phenomena.) I haven't had a chance to read more than a little bit of the book so far, though I've certainly enjoyed what I've read. But I admit that I did skip ahead to glance at Chapter 18, titled “Is Survival a Fact?” In it, Carter observes that there are 3 categories of convincing evidence:

1. proof beyond all doubt

2. proof beyond all reasonable doubt

3. preponderance of the evidence

Though I didn't read further, from the book's packaging I gather that Carter concludes that number 2–proof beyond all reasonable doubt–is the most reasonable position with regard to postmortem survival.

These words reminded me of a powerful synchronicity that I experienced a few years ago. A close relative of mine had died a couple of days earlier. I was thinking about this and about the evidence for life after death. Out loud, I said to myself, “I think it's fair to say that life after death could be proved by the standards of a civil trial, but not by the standards of a criminal trial. That is, it could be established by a preponderance of the evidence, but not beyond all reasonable doubt.”

An hour or two later, I had to replace the batteries in the remote control for my television set. In order to test the new batteries, I used the remote to turn on the TV. This was in the middle of the day. I never watch TV during the day and I had no idea what would be on, or even what channel would appear. What came up was a soap opera, and the very first lines of dialogue I heard were spoken by an actor playing an attorney, who was telling his client (I paraphrase from memory): “You have to understand, Gloria, that there are different standards of evidence in a civil trial than in a criminal trial. In a civil trial you only need to establish your case with a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond any reasonable doubt.”

In combination with various other synchronicities, dreams, and unusual occurrences around the same time, I found this event very meaningful.

Nevertheless, despite such experiences, I've persisted in playing it safe in most of my discussions of postmortem survival. As long-time readers have probably noticed, I've avoided taking a definite position, and when discussing particular cases, such as examples of mediumship, I'll use words like purported, alleged, apparent, arguably, and seemingly.

I think a certain hesitation and caution can be appropriate when dealing with ambiguous and controversial material, especially given well-known examples of fraud or mistaken observation that have bedeviled the whole subject of paranormal phenomena. Nevertheless, there comes a point where I think you do have to take a stand. It's not practical to hold off making a final decision forever, to leave the issue permanently tabled with no prospect of resolution. Caution can turn into cowardice; fair-mindedness can become wishy-washiness. And terms like purported, though they have their place, can become weasel words if they serve as a substitute for a clear evaluation of the facts.

The truth is that after fifteen years of studying this subject–mostly armchair study, I admit, but I'm not sure that's the worst way to learn about it–I can no longer reasonably deny the clear-cut, virtually self-evident conclusion to be drawn from an enormous mass of documented evidence collected from all over the world, via many different lines of research, in conjunction with countless anecdotal accounts. It is clear to me that there is an overwhelming likelihood that consciousness does survive physical death, that the process of dying is essentially what near-death experiencers and mediumistic communicators describe it as, and that conditions in the next plane of existence can be at least roughly understood by those who've taken the time to learn about them.

There remain countless questions, perhaps the most troublesome being that of reincarnation and how exactly it fits into this overall scheme. But there are always questions. We have many questions about the way our physical world works too, but that doesn't mean we are unable to come to any definite conclusions about it. We may not know exactly how quantum mechanics can be reconciled with relativity theory, or how to explain wave/particle duality, or exactly how neurotransmitters affect the personality, but we certainly know the boiling point of water and the speed of light. Ignorance about some things doesn't justify doubt about everything.

In other words, after fifteen years I'm prepared to say not just that life after death is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, but that it is a fact established beyond reasonable doubt. And while there may be problems with some of the evidence, these problems do not justify a wholesale dismissal of the mountain of evidence that's available to anyone who cares to look.

Now, in saying that an afterlife is proven beyond reasonable doubt, I don't mean to suggest that anyone who doubts life after death is necessarily being unreasonable. Most people are unacquainted with any of the evidence in this area; and a reasonable person who simply hasn't looked into the subject and knows nothing about it is certainly entitled to assume, in line with the general drift of materialism and physicalism among Western intellectuals today, that postmortem survival is a nonsensical notion. It can take years of immersion in the relevant literature to become convinced that the case is proven. People who haven't made this effort are not unreasonable; they're just busy with other things.

On the other hand, I do think that people who claim to have taken a thorough look at the  literature and yet persist in saying there is no convincing evidence are being unreasonable. If the collective efforts of serious researchers from many continents over a period of more than a century–researchers who, in many cases, began as skeptics themselves; researchers whose number includes some of the most illustrious names in science, psychology, and philosophy, even Nobel Prize-winners–if all those efforts are dismissed as being simply unbelievable and not worth taking seriously, then the critic is applying a standard of belief that no body of evidence, in any field, could ever satisfy. 

Too many of the so-called skeptics–I mean professional skeptics, not laypeople–operate like defense attorneys who are determined to muddy the waters, confuse the jury, exploit technicalities, and game the system in order to win debating points at the expense of the truth. Their approach all too often consists of tendentious hairsplitting and obvious logical fallacies, like personal attacks, question-begging, and appeals to emotion.

As many people have pointed out, the term skeptic is not really appropriate for people who operate this way. Skepticism implies neutrality, a willingness to look at the evidence without prejudice and follow it wherever it may lead. A great many of the self-styled skeptics clearly have an agenda, usually rooted in materialism and secular humanism, and have made up their minds long before they began their “investigations,” which consist mainly of cherrypicking the weakest examples or focusing on a few dubious details in an otherwise impeccable case. Like the defense team in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, they subject each drop of blood to endless analysis and speculation, creating a climate of doubt and a fog of confusion, without troubling to notice that there is a trail of blood leading directly from the murder victims to the suspect's car and from the suspect's car to his house. They pick apart each leaf on the branch of a particular tree, but never acknowledge the forest.

Though I've called them skeptics in the past, I think from now on I will call them debunkers. The word debunker is neutral, not insulting like other some options (denier, scoffer, etc.). The so-called skeptics themselves often describe themselves as engaged in debunking, so they can't reasonably object to the term. But unlike the word skeptic, the word debunker suggests an agenda; it suggests that the person is actively seeking to invalidate a certain claim. And this is true of most of the so-called skeptics most of the time.

I might add that debunkers are not always wrong. Far from it. Some of the cases really are weak and deserve criticism. I've played the role of debunker myself, particularly in regard to some (though not all) claims of materialization mediumship. Debunking can be a perfectly legitimate and useful activity, but it is an activity dictated by an agenda, and the word captures this connotation in a way that the word skeptic does not.

One more thing. When I first started writing online essays about the paranormal and life after death, back before I had even launched this blog, I was trying to convince other people to take the phenomena seriously. By now, however, I can honestly say I'm not concerned about converting other people to my point of view. First, I don't think people can be converted by argument; they have to choose to investigate the subject for themselves, in their own good time. Second, I don't see it as my obligation to “enlighten” anyone else, nor do I necessarily see myself as more “enlightened” than other people who may not know much about life after death, but who may know a lot than I do more about many other things. And third, I think if you step back from the ego-driven conflicts of everyday life, you get a sense that everybody is where he or she ought to be at any given time. Nobody is doing it "wrong." Even our so-called mistakes serve a purpose, and contribute to the rich mosaic of earthly life. So why try to change anybody? Not only is it useless and rather arrogant, but it may even be counterproductive in the grand scheme of things.

Ultimately I can only be responsible for my own opinions and conclusions, not for anyone else's. For a long time I'd been leaning strongly toward the idea of life after death, but I hadn't fully committed to it. That policy made sense up to a point. But that point, for me, has been passed, and to persist in using qualifying adjectives and self-protective caveats would be, I think, dishonest and hypocritical.

So yes, according to my best reading of the evidence, there is life after death–no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

What it all means, and where we go from here, are separate questions, of course.  

=======

By the way, Chris Carter's book is now available in a Kindle edition. 

Comments

[Paul]

Just to add my own pennyworth : I have learned a lot from posters on this blog too.

[Matt Rouge]

I've made several great friends on here. Michael's blog is truly one of the shining lights of the Net. There's nothing else quite like it!

[lynn]

Tsavo, Is good to see you comment.

I just want to, say that although many here appear to have come from the other side of the fence, a number have done scientific research as part of/or in their degrees.

I'm a trained nurse and forever dwindling away at a psychology degree while being an expat. In psychiatry, simply having a belief in "god" is considered an illusion.

Now psychiatrists can be found who believe either way. And like I say- these "beliefs" are down to "habits", ( much to do with upbringing).

Its a simple word "habit', with a powerful affect.

I don't know of another phenomena like near death, that is confounded by so many variables and yet remains the same. i.e. it occurs irrespective of being of differing ages and culture, is oxygenated, drugged, flat lined or not.

So my stance is - the skeptical view falls closers to "beliefs", and the scientific position as it sits, is not a logical one.

Cheers Lyn

[no one]

"As a scientist, I know I will never be able to commit 100% to a belief in an afterlife without personally experiencing it. That would be faith. "

Hi tsavo. I am a scientist of sorts too - actuarial sciences. I'm a numbers guy and I calculate probabilities every day.

The end of my personal hedging came about in large part because I applied probabilities calculations - or at least that kind of thinking as best I could - to some of the experiences I had and some well documented cases involving others. Individual aspects of just about any case can be found to have a probability of greater than 0.05 (though not always).

Indeed, a favorite professional skeptical approach is to *only* address individual variables, one at a time, and explain how they *could* have a normal explanation.

However, the best cases usually have more than a single aspect/variable that needs to be explained and when we begin to multiply the probability of each key aspect/variable by the probability of the next, the odds of something other than paranormal explanation become so minute as to be virtually non-existant.

The need to multiply the probabilities of each variable in a chain is too often overlooked in analyzing the null hypothesis.

All that said, life is not science. Science is a very useful tool for getting through the physical challenges of life on earth, but it is not the only tool. Another way that I got past my hedging was to simply search my heart (yes, a la star wars :-). We have feelings for a reason. If they weren't a valid means of perceiving the world we probably wouldn't have them. And we don't use binomial distributions or ANOVA to come to the conclusion that a child loves us, nor does the child determine we love it using probabilities methods.

For some reason we are taught to distrust our feelings. This is a pity.

[lynn]

Beautifully said "No One" :) Lyn x.

[Mark Green]

This is an outstanding blog post. REALLY enjoyed reading it. Much of what was stated in this post resonates well with my personal beliefs. Some excellent comments as well:

“That the world is not what atheists/materialists say it is--proved beyond *any* doubt.”

Totally agree with this!

Bruce. I enjoy reading your excellent comments whenever I peruse this blog, however I didn’t immediately recognize the truth of the statement:

“As evidenced by the fact that many people who are 100% convinced of the afterlife wish there weren't one.”

Where you specifically referring to NDErs or simply including them. I have read many NDE accounts and have not come to the same conclusion as this. Even people who have negative NDEs don’t generally express a wish that there is no afterlife. Can you clarify which group of people have led you to think this?

[Bruce Siegel]

Mark, I was mostly referring to religious fundamentalists who are afraid of going to hell.

[Bruce Siegel]

"We have feelings for a reason. If they weren't a valid means of perceiving the world we probably wouldn't have them."

Excellent, no one! (Though I admit that at times, it can be tricky to know which feelings relate to present reality, and which may be residue from the past.)

[Bruce Siegel]

I've been thinking about your brave post, Michael, and contrasting it to my own comment, in which I said that other than during my mystical experiences, I was unable to say I'm absolutely certain of survival.

But the truth is, there's probably little or no distance between us. When I look at all the evidence, and put it together with my own experiences, I can't imagine anything that would be consistent with all that data other than the conclusion that we don't truly die.

One of the reasons I hesitate to come out and say that I'm usually certain of survival, is because there are different levels or kinds of certainty.

On the one hand, there's a rational understanding.

On the other, there's the sort of conviction you feel when you're in the midst of an NDE or other deeply altered state. In those moments your certainty of survival is so complete, you might say that you BECOME that knowing.

In contrast to that, the sort of conviction I feel most of the time is a pretty pathetic thing!

[Pavel Chichikov]

"And third, I think if you step back from the ego-driven conflicts of everyday life, you get a sense that everybody is where he or she ought to be at any given time. Nobody is doing it "wrong." Even our so-called mistakes serve a purpose, and contribute to the rich mosaic of earthly life. So why try to change anybody? Not only is it useless and rather arrogant, but it may even be counterproductive in the grand scheme of things."

This is wise and insightful.

[Pavel Chichikov]

From the visions of Dame Julian of Norwich, a 14th-15th century English mystic:

“See that I am God. See that I am in everything. See that I do everything. See that I have never stopped ordering my works, nor ever shall, eternally. See that I lead everything on to the conclusion I ordained for it before time began, by the same power, wisdom and love with which I made it. How can anything be amiss?”

[Bruce Siegel]

I want to change one word from the last sentence of my last comment: change "pathetic" to "small". Pathetic might imply useless, and the truth is, I'm extremely grateful for whatever degree of spiritual certainty I do have from moment to moment. It makes a huge difference in my life.

[Pavel Chichikov]

Bruce,to be small is to be close to joyful truth, and the smaller the closer.

[Sophie]

Zerdini notes, and Michael concedes, that experiencing a genuine direct-voice medium is very convincing of the survival of consciousness in an afterlife. Now, I crave to be convinced. But how does one get near such a medium?

Although a newcomer to this field, I have read diligently, and I conclude that the materialist position in the survival debate is vanquished. So, Michael, I lapped up your exposé of your reasons for your decision, firmly based as it is on your extensive knowledge of this area, to abandon the weasel words. For my own part, though, I am still without the personally-experienced evidence that will finally clinch it for me.

That is, my now quite wide reading of the academic literature on the subject, and of accounts of the performances of mediums, is ample to convince me that the survival thesis is rationally tenable. But the medium is a key figure in the conviction scheme. If I were to experience a medium who lets me hear a relative who has passed over speak to me, my need to be convinced would be fully satisfied. (I'd probably even settle for an automatic-writing medium.)

And now my plea for help: Will someone please tell me whether there is a genuine direct-voice medium in Britain who is accessible?

Michael, I am hugely relieved that you are not intending to discontinue your superb blog. It is by far the best blog there is. Thank you enormously for it, as much for your impressively informed and delightfully sportive commentaries as for the calibre of poster they attract.

[Pavel Chichikov]

Sophie, to accept the evidence of any medium is to accept another person's perception for what you must experience for yourself.

I wouldn't do it, and I think it's a very risky thing to do. You don't know what you might find yourself involved with. There are also most probably many charlatans out there willing and able to take people's money from them, or at best the misguided.

[Unreal]

I'm already more than convinced of Survival of Conciousness after Bodily Death also, If it hadn't been for some very interesting Paranormal experiences earlier in my Life and also the precise details 2 Mediums given me about loved ones who have passed on and also about my own Life I'd be still sitting on the fence to this day undecided.

The things 1 Medium in particular told me she couldn't of known unless she was following my every move or had someone follow me which I don't think is possible as I am in a different Country to her.

[Unreal]

sorry I mean *Consciousness* sometimes I type too fast. :P

[Kathleen]

The next question is: what happens when we do survive the death of the body?

Do we wind up in the pretty place alongside your friendly neighborhood pedophile, the backstabbing co-worker? Is there a re-education camp? Or do those people get sent back for a few or a hundred more rounds until they get it right? If the last is the case, maybe most of the people around us are incorrigible miscreants who just can't get it right.

I'm bringing up Anthony Borgia again, but I think he had it right: we get the Afterlife we deserve, or in other words, we create our own hell. For some reason, I just felt on an intuitive level that Borgia had it right.

[Leo]

I agree that the evidence for the existence of an afterlife is overwhelming. However, it would be nice obviously if more mainstream scientists would become convinced of this evidence as well. Philosopher John Searle for example claims that consciousness is caused by brain processes.

I know I have come across many who say the biggest stumbling block for them to accept life after death as a very strong possibility is the evidence from neuroscience. Even though I don't agree I do find it rather interesting.

There is also this article that claims brain imaging can reveal the movies in our minds.

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/

If the brain is a filter of consciousness and a decoder its no surprise that you would be able to decode brain activity and show it on a computer stimulation.

[tsavo]

Perhaps just a bit of clarification. My personal worldview (at the moment) leans heavily toward the existence some sort of consciousness afterlife, and very heavily toward the reality of what are termed paranormal phenomena. I do listen to my heart, and it's the motivator in all this, but I also listen to my head. It's there for a purpose up top my neck. It's easy to be fooled by jumping to what seem to be obvious conclusions. It's important to look at both sides in all things, particularly in matters as slippery and elusive as the kinds of metaphysical questions discussed here. The intent of my original post was simply to encourage everyone to feel comfortable coming down in the gray on all this, at least from an intellectual point of view. It's quite all right, in fact preferable, IMO, to carry quite contradictory ideas around in your head and to be constantly examining, evaluating, and revising them.

[Alexander1304]

Folks,Michael,Zerdini,I need your help.At the moment you all celbrated Michael's conviction and another people express belief in som life after death,I personally feel terrible confused...
Just today I've read Hornel Hart "Enigma Of Survival". He deals there with anti-survivalist arguments about mental mediumship(telepathy,clairvoyance,precogniction etc) and apparitions.At the end of the book he refutes them,but I'm not sure how successfully.But rhe real blow came later,when I found one article,dated 1960,where authore simply demolishes survivalist arguments,startgin with apparitions,go to OBE,and then L.Piper,G.Leonard,Cross-Correspondence and Newspaper tests.His conclusion - it is all better explained by ESP,so ration person should accept ESP and to abandon Survivalist interpretation,since ESP requires fewer assumptions.

Another anti-survivalist book says about mind: "mind appears to be Limiteless,what makes definite case for survival all the more difficult"
Just words.

I'm baffled.I've never thought these arguments could come under such attack.To his credit - he admits that he may overlook some evidence,and he admists that should new data come he might reconsider his position.
The only concolation I see her for myself,as pro-survivalist,that it is just his opinion,not nescesseraly shared by majority of researchers.Moreover,later I found on Internet R.Croockoll,he says "90% of SPR believe in survival".So,are they all irrational?

In any case,what I see now,intense debate is going between Survival-vs-SuperPsi,case is definetely not closed, at lest not in favour of SuperPsi.

And in any case,I don't see how SuperPsi may apply to "direct-voice" cases studied by A.Findlay and E.Randall.

Someone can comment on the point tht survivalistic arguments can be criticised ,even cross-correspondence,and conclusion that ESP is more rational made?...

[sbu]

Alexander, super-psi has been discussed to great extent on previous blog posts here. Try to google "michael prescott super psi"

[sbu]

tsavo, what is your area of research and expertise?

[Joshua Cearley]

@Alexander1304 "Super-PSI" was more or less invented to salvage materialism. It seems to me a large number of skeptics don't even believe in "Super-PSI" and will hold firm that even regular Psi is not proven and all tests for it (Ganzfeld, Presentiment, etc) are just "bad science" with statistical errors. If you are able to rule out error (Ganzfelds are repeatable, certain types of people have much higher success without changing the statistical methods or involving fraud, and Presentiment has been replicated in different forms with variables adjusted showing it isn't just anticipation quirks) and can't cling to fraud, then one can just say the person is able to access a global conciousness and read the mind of someone across the planet (see proxy sitters, where the person interviewing the spirit has no direct knowledge of the correct answer which rules out cold reading and local telepathy) than admit survivalism might be possible. It's helpful too, because Super-Psi essentially puts survivalism in an unfalsifiable category; they can claim -every- case no matter how convincing is a previously unresearched form of Super-Psi, even though they believe Psi doesn't exist to begin with.

@Sophie Pavel is right; you will want to do a lot of research before consulting any mediums. Make sure to read up on literature like The Psychic Mafia so you know some simple methods used by fraudsters; avoid big names who charge because it seems real mediums don't do it for the money and don't generally want to be famous either. Friends-of-friends is probably one of the only ways to find ones with genuine potential for psi or mediumship without getting caught up in a fraud web. Give as little info as possible and have them do most of the talking; verify everything you are told to make sure it isn't easily available online (hot reading.) If you see multiple mediums, randomize the questions you ask to see if you can trip them up.

[MarkW]

I've always regarded myself as a reasonably logical thinker and someone who has always loved science. But then two things came along and really challenged the way I thought about science, life and death... Skeptiko with Alex Tsakiris, and this wonderful blog with you, Micheal and your fellow posters. My views of science and our survival have been thrown into a spin. THANK YOU!!! Excellent post Micheal.

[Alexander1304]

Thanks,Joshua.
You see,my problem that I'm like "fluher".I rad something about how convincing the afterlife evidence - and Ibelieve it.Then I foind some book that says it is all explainable better by Suoer PSI - and I believe it...Although there is alwasy probably good degree of subjectivity.I need some criteria to stande,and not to change my opinion avery time I read something.I think Alan Gauld's 'Mediumship and Survival" good point of departure...Any suggestions will be welcome

[no one]

"If you see multiple mediums, randomize the questions you ask to see if you can trip them up."

Joshua, I think there has to be a fair balance between testing the medium's validity and being totally suggestible.

I very much believe that if one is trying to 'trip up" the medium (or any person attempting to operate psi) and becomes too negative, that the psi is actually impaired, perhaps to the point of being non-operational. A certain openness is necesary for optimal functioning. Really, I think psi works best when all participants believe it is going to work.

I understand that one does not want to be duped by con artists - and there certainly are con artists posing as mediums, etc.

Maybe a better approach is to not offer anything by way of specific personal details or cues (maintain poker face) that could be used for cold reading. To remain calm and passive and open, record the session and apply a critical assessment afterward.

[Douglas]

Who was the medium that people on this board recommended recently? She does telephone readings and has a good reputation on the whole, although even she admits she has good days and bad days.

[David R]

Leslie Flint did voice mediumship of Mahatma Gandhi. I have listened to it, along with other apparently famous older persons. It is not convincing evidence of some afterlife. The personalities of these voices are totally missing. What comes through is some kind of message rather than some kind of authentic communication with a dead person.

This is not evidence of an afterlife, no matter how much you claim it is.

[Wax Frog]

@Joshua - You mean there really is a La Cosa Nostradamus? ;-)

[David R]

"Zerdini" claims to have evidence that dead people are still alive. But if you look into that evidence, you don't discover that dead people are still alive, you discover that alive people are claiming dead people are still alive. This is in no way any proof of any afterlife. And the rest of the phenomena can be attributed to super-psi.

THe alleged communications from famous dead people are giving MESSAGES not EVIDENCE. THeir personalities are completely warped and they have no sense of humour. THis is not congruent or consistent. If these people were really dead and intact in their egos, they would be exactly the same personality wise as they were when they were alive, but they ARE NOT. This is evidence that it is fake, not genuine.

There is no evidence of any after life. There is suggestion. Suggestion is not evidence.

[David R]

Let me be more clear. Mediumship, no matter how you look at it, can be attributed to the human mind and not the deceased. There is no evidence that disincarnate humans are in this world, whether you cite reincarnation, hauntings, or mediumship. That is a fact, and you cannot disprove it.

[zerdini]

@David R

It is painfully obvious that you have no experience of Leslie Flint's mediumship.

Nobody is claiming that a single tape recording is evidence of an Afterlife.

Most of Leslie's sitters were ordinary people who were enabled to communicate with their loved ones.

For example, I spoke to my grandfather for close on forty minutes. Various friends of mine had similar experiences.

[tsavo]

@sbu
Recently retired academic. Molecular biology, primarily plants, but also bacteria and cultured mammalian cells.

[zerdini]

@David R

It seems pointless to debate with you as you have fixed opinions (that is all they are) and you come across as a troll.

I should also add that personality and memory are good evidence of survival. They are amply demonstrated in direct voice seances.

"Zerdini" claims to have evidence that dead people are still alive. But if you look into that evidence, you don't discover that dead people are still alive, you discover that alive people are claiming dead people are still alive."

The communicators in direct voice seances say they are alive no matter what you say.

As Silver Birch often stated:

"If you prefer blindness keep your eyes closed.

"If you prefer deafness keep your ears closed."

[Alexander1304]

DavidR:

Regardnd spirit communications,first I trust Zerdini,and I know a lot of smart people that had experience of communicating,and are convinced about it genuiness.I don't think they are fool.

Moreover,it seems unwise to had fixed belief about it,let experiments talk.

Do you know about blind experiments conducted by Archie Roy & Tricia Robertson?
What about current experiments going on Windbridge insitute,conducting by Julie Beischel?
As stated on one good website discussing Windbridge research: "I'll try to download it.
But ew points I already can make.
First,there is almost no reference about this book,just in Robert Almeder "Personal Survival" he mentiones it
Second,let me quote what I found on 2 websites:
http://www.juliaassante.com/reflections/problems-and-methods-of-afterdeath-communication-and-mediumship-research/

"Furthermore, DMILS or any form of super-psi and reservoir hypotheses cannot explain afterdeath communication that takes the form of dialogue, even arguments. Nor can they explain instances in which the dead tell us about something that they and only they know, something that occurred after their deaths."
And as medium Jeffrey Marks(whose book I'm going to order) stated on his blog:
""In several cases, the deceased will acknowledge events and happenings that have occurred to the sitter since the deceased had been dead – someone got married, a new child was born into the family, what have you. Quantum holographic recording isn’t adequate enough to explain why the person I feel standing off to my left would be bringing up such information. Moreover, sometimes a deceased person will predict a future event. For instance, I mentioned to a client to watch out for a pair of birds, that’s how her deceased loved one would present himself. Not long after, she received a mysterious photograph of two birds on her cell phone."

[Alexander1304]

Zerdini: "The communicators in direct voice seances say they are alive no matter what you say."

And that was exactly case made by direct-voice investigtors A.Findlay,E.Randall and admiral Usborne.I wonder if DavidR ever read about them.But for what?He lready made up his mind...

[Michael Prescott]

I just read a blog post arguing that immortality would be boring. The focus was on physical immortality, not an afterlife, but one of the comments did raise the question of whether or not the soul would be bored also. Feeling puckish, and having my usual aversion to leaving my computer and venturing outdoors even on a beautiful fall day, I decided to post a reply:

==========

IMO, the soul has plenty to do in the next stage of existence. It must review its earthly actions and see (and experience) their consequences for other people. It must learn from its mistakes and atone for them. Eventually it must choose a new incarnation best suited to learning new lessons – or, if physicality is no longer necessary, it must transition to higher spiritual planes. There is always more to learn, more to do, more growth and evolution, as the soul makes its way back to the godhead from which it sprang. Plus, there is the love and companionship of other souls embarked on the same journey.

At least that’s how I see it after many years of immersion in relevant subjects: near-death experiences, mediumship, children’s past-life memories, mystical teachings and traditions, etc.

So don’t worry, be happy! ;-)

===========

I realize that such a statement is a blanket invitation to ridicule, but I figure it might possibly spur some interest on the part of one or two people. What the heck. At least it keeps me out of the daylight. (Sometimes I think I may already be on my way to achieving physical immortality - as a vampire.)
 

[Michael Prescott]

Douglas, the medium you're thinking of is Georgia O'Connor. Google her name + medium, and her site will come up.

I was impressed with her, and I know a couple of commenters here had good (telephone) sessions also. But I can't predict what sort of experience you might have. And she does charge a not-inconsiderable fee.

David R., I think it depends on where you draw the line between evidence that is merely suggestive and evidence that is convincing. I'd suggest reading Chris Carter's latest book, Science and the Afterlife Experience, for a vigorous argument in defense of the proposition that the evidence, in total, is highly convincing. But ultimately it's a personal choice. After all, there are no airtight rules for inductive reasoning (unlike deductive reasoning). And the mechanism of survival - a theory that would explain it - is still up in the air, though there are some interesting ideas (e.g., James Beichler's book To Die For).

[Alexander1304]

Fantastic: philosopher David Rousseau finds the strategy to defeat Super-ESP through NDEs!

http://www.systemsphilosophy.org/publications/Rousseau_Journal_of_Scientific_Exploration_2012_26_43-80.pdf

Enjoy!

[Alexander1304]

I just got personal email rom Michase Grosso:

"I have written a book on the evidence for survival, "Experiencing the Next World Now", 2004. In it I argue that the argument that tries to explain survival evidence by invoking unusual powers of the mind is ultimately self-defeating. The more power you ascribe to the mind the more plausible the idea of survival. "

[Unreal]

Yeah Douglas 1 of the Medium's I had a Telephone Reading with was Georgia O'Connor after I seen that Michael recommended her and I was not let down a bit and she doesn't charge much either for a 30 minute reading. :)

[Pavel Chichikov]

There are very specific injunctions in Catholic teaching and in Christianity in general against resorting to mediums or attempting to contact deceased persons, not because religion is trying to monopolize spiritual experience, but because you may find yourself dealing with malign forces that are capable of impersonation and exploitation. Nor are even well-meaning "mediums" invulnerable to this sort of malignity.

I too am impressed by some NDEs, but not to the extent that I place my faith in them.

I am also chary of doing anything that attempts to "force" God's hand into revealing what should probably remain a mystery in this life that is, the mystery of death.

I once had an experience in which, in a state of what one might call needy contemplation, I asked God how it was possible that someone I had known, someone with a personality, a personal history which I well knew, someone with all the rich attributes of a human being, could have vanished into the mystery of death.

I received an answer in the form of a vision both lucid and powerful. But it was plain that to receive such a vision one must approach the mystery with the humility and smallness of a child, and in a state of great need, without the slightest forcing, demanding or exploitation of an answer.

One characteristic of such an experience is that one is completely free to enter farther in or to withdraw from it.

After a moment I withdrew.

Another is that there is no question of any heterodox understanding, initiation or flattery, no attempt to recruit into anything, or to repay anything. Most certainly, money should never be part of it.

It was the sort of experience that one has once in a lifetime, if that. It is a free gift of God and has nothing to do with any spiritual technique or merit of the person having the experience.

Humility and "emptying", what in Christian tradition is called "kenosis", is almost certainly necessary. One should not expect a repetition.

Prayer, humility, genuine need, emptying of the ego. Then what will be is not up to us.

[no one]

Cool! I just googled Georgia O'Connor and I see that she is located in Amsterdam, NY which is a pleasant drive down the thruway from my home.

I am going to schedule two half hour in person readings with her (one for me and one for my wife). We have both had some impressions of afterlife communications from recently deceased family. I am really curious to see what Georgia says and if what she says corroborates our impressions. Of course I won't tell her this ahead of time and I will be careful to maintain poker face. Also, I think I will use first names only.

I will report back to everyone once this has been accomplished.

[Bruce Siegel]

Cool, no one! Looking forward to to your report.

[no one]

Done. appt is in about two weeks. 1 hr, in person

[Juan]

Hello Michael. Congratulations for all this time you have spent on this blog.

On the question of the afterlife, I think you were right to take a position that I think is the most plausible. What I regret is that the majority of society give back to the evidence of the afterlife.

And about afterlife vs super-psi, I would like to say briefly what follows. First, although many cases of mediumship may be cases where the medium unconsciously build artificial personality from psi information, there are drop-in communications, where the medium could have no motivation to build the personality of the deceased that appeared at the session, which points strongly to the afterlife hypothesis.

Second, there are experiments that suggest the existence of a vehicle of consciousness different from the organic body, the astral body, as Durville experiments on the externalization of sensibility and motor or Osis experiments with psychic Tanous. These experiments alone do not prove that this body persists after death of the organic body, but along with the cases of NDEs, deathbed visions and apparitions, the more likely the called second body persists after the death of the organic body.

Third, about children who seem to remember past lives and super-psi, I would argue that if the child is attuned to the memories of the deceased, then could tune with anyone, but it does not. So I find it incomprehensible that the child tune with a particular deceased and not another, unless the child is deceased.

And fourth, thank you very much for that text of David Rousseau, Alexander1304. About NDEs and super-psi, I would write that given the conditions in which generally find a consciousness in a NDE, enhanced lucidity, enhanced psi abilities and encounter with deceased loved ones, the more likely it is that consciousness clearly run its journey after the death of the body.

[Sophie]

@ Pavel: Thank you for this advice: 'Sophie, to accept the evidence of any medium is to accept another person's perception for what you must experience for yourself. I wouldn't do it, and I think it's a very risky thing to do ...'. I'm sure you are right. I was just carried away by the prospect of hearing a relative's voice channelled by a direct-voice medium. But that, I suppose, is pie-in-the-sky.

@ Leo: '... it would be nice obviously if more mainstream scientists would become convinced of this evidence as well. Philosopher John Searle for example claims that consciousness is caused by brain processes ...'.

Actually, quite a few mainstream scientists are involved in this great debate. There is an excellent book: Irreducible Mind, by Kelly et al., http://www.amazon.co.uk/Irreducible-Mind-Toward-Psychology-Century/dp/0742547922 , that does a sterling job of outlining the existing mainstream research and commentary on the mind/body distinction.

All the empirical-scientist debunkers of the 'survival of consciousness' hypothesis posit that consciousness is a function of the brain. This has in general been laid to rest by the obvious point that this hypothesis is itself not testable. John Searle, however, has a singular hypothesis, the strength of which Kelly at al. acknowledge (pp. 24-25). Empirical research on Searle's theoretical construct is presently in progress. Its outcome will be interesting.

Another interesting development is the NDE of the neurosurgeon Eben Alexander: http://www.aansneurosurgeon.org/210212/6/1611 . Until his, reported NDEs were those of people who has suffered heart failure. Dr Alexander's happened during what he calls a complete shut-down of his brain (i.e., he was technically brain-dead). We are yet to see how this will bear upon the 'consciousness is a product of the brain' proposition.

@ Joshua: Thank you for your very sound advice. If I ever venture (I have cold feet right now), I shall follow it to the letter.

[Matt Rouge]

I've got your mechanism of survival and a pretty crushing argument against super-psi--all in one.

Yes, this is the thing I harp on from time to time, but I think it's the paradigm shift that will make a lot of things click. I also don't claim much originality. Viz. Plato and friends.

Here we go:

1. Information is indestructible (feel free to call it "form" per Plato et al. The concept should be fairly clear).

2. Human beings have an information content. Our thoughts. Our actions. The positions of every molecule in our bodies. Everything.

3. The information content of each human being is indestructible. It is not an "object" that can cease to be. Moreover, our information is not a static thing that is merely "written down" somewhere but, reflecting the life that it mirrors, is itself living.

Our information content, or form, is what survives death. There's your mechanism--pretty simple.

Now, as for super-psi. What is psi but accessing information? So accessing the information content of the deceased and accessing the deceased him/herself is the same thing. Thus, the concept of super-psi presents no problem whatsoever for survival. In fact, it merely ends up reinforcing it.

This paradigm also solves the issue of dualism. There is no need to explain how spirit interacts with matter, since spirit is simply living information.

Anyhow, there ya go.

[Michael Prescott]

"There are very specific injunctions in Catholic teaching and in Christianity in general against resorting to mediums or attempting to contact deceased persons, not because religion is trying to monopolize spiritual experience, but because you may find yourself dealing with malign forces ..."

I agree that one must be wary of malign forces, but I also think that religious injunctions against mediumship often *are* in place "to monopolize spiritual experience." In addition, the Christian tradition is mixed: we are told to "test the spirits," not to eschew communications entirely, and it appears that spontaneous channeling was a feature of early Christian services. (See St. Paul's comments on spiritual gifts, which include "prophesy," a term that covers channeling).

As far as making money from mediumship is concerned, I think that if doctors and counselors can charge fees, mediums can, too - although I admit that mediums who refuse payment and seek no publicity are probably a bit easier to believe in.

If evidence for an afterlife were restricted to spontaneous cases of "cosmic consciousness," then it would be impossible to study the subject objectively. I think 150 years of evidence indicates that a scientific approach is possible, albeit difficult and fraught with controversy.