Image swiped from the Facebook page of "Soul Guidance." Appropriate to recent discussions, no? Also, Roger Knights points me to a blog devoted to stuff like this:

http://www.theuniversesolved.com/theuniversesolved/blog/author/jim.aspx

Comments

[Matt Rouge]

Funny, I had read this post recently. Good stuff. Just RSSed his blog.

[Douglas]

This is a great site, very slick

[Sophie]

No wonder no-one has commented on Jim Elvidge's blog! Looking at his conclusion in the opening one on the link provided:

'That matter is most likely just data. And the forces that cause us to experience matter the way we do are just rules about how data interacts with itself.
Data and Rules – that’s all there is.
Oh yeah, and Consciousness.'

Elvidge has extrapolated a theory, 'Data and Rules – that’s all there is', from three extrapolated theories. OK. His theory is realised as an analytical statement. It is arguably an axiom of logic that only the analytical statement is capable of absolute proof. (The synthetic statement is not.) Indeed, there is no need to prove anything, other than that definiendum is contained in the definiens. And in this case, that is clearly provable, since that is what it was constructed to be. But so what?

Why, though, has he (jokingly?) inserted 'Oh yeah, and Consciousness.' How did that get there? It is not part of his analytical-statement conclusion. And he has said nothing about it, so it is not a statement of either kind.

I'm sorry, Michael, but this appears to me to be a frivolous logicians' game. His argument has no existential import at all. That makes it a pointless argument.

[RabbitDawg]

Cool blog. Sort of reminds me of this one:

http://www.bernardokastrup.com/

[RabbitDawg]

More specific to a topic covered on this blog, here is Kastrup's take on the Eben Alexander / Sam Harris kerfuffle:

http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/10/sam-harris-critique-of-eben-alexander.html

[Bruce Siegel]

Cool blog. Sort of reminds me of this one:
http://www.bernardokastrup.com/"

Rabbitdawg, Bernardo's viewpoint is very different. As Sophie points out, Elvidge says that "matter is most likely just data." He says "Data and Rules – that’s all there is."

And then, because, like anyone else who adopts this position he has to admit that it has the serious problem of not being able to account for consciousness, he adds (somewhat jokingly, I assume), "Oh yeah, and Consciousness."

So his is a compromised perspective (as I see it) that doesn't seem to quite take itself seriously. As Sophie says:

"this appears to me to be a frivolous logicians' game."

Bernardo comes at the problem from a different direction. Though he gets quite abstract at times, and I don't claim to always be able to follow him, he's always clear on one essential point: he is a monistic idealist. Like me, he believes that mind is fundamental and that consciousness is ultimately all there is.

What I like about Bernardo is that however far out there he gets, he grounds his philosophy in his own experiences in altered states of consciousness (as well as reports of NDErs and other mystics). His book Dreamed Up Reality, which I'm now re-reading, makes that clear.

[Bruce Siegel]

Sorry, this should have all been in quotes:

"Cool blog. Sort of reminds me of this one:
http://www.bernardokastrup.com/"

Rabbitdawg is calling it cool, not me. :o)

[Bruce Siegel]

By the way, I think "Dreamed up Reality" is a wonderfully apt name for a book exploring our true state of affairs. I will never, ever, forget my own profound journey that culminated with the thought: So that's it! This is all a dream within a dream within a dream . . .

[J9]

Google my old professor Dr. Maurice Cohen in conjunction with Chaos theory. His theories were laughed at twenty years ago. Now his research on making order out of chaos is used in many fields.

As a Math teacher, I tell my students everyday that the universe has order. All you have to do is look at the numbers pi and e (yes, I said the number e) and their occurence in nature to see that. That along with the golden ratio.

[Barbara]

What's e J9?

[RabbitDawg]

Thanx for the insight, Bruce. I'm kinda new to Kastrup, so I'm still assessing what he has to say. His monistic idealism can be debated, but he does throw some well-placed spears into the heart of reductionist materialism.

"Rabbitdawg is calling it cool, not me". :o)

Oh...I dunno...for what its worth, I discovered Michel Prescott's blog a few years ago when I was doing a Google search on PMH Atwater. I was charmed by her energetic approach to near-death experiences, but logically, she didn't make a lick of sense. After clicking onto a post where Michael discussed her, a whole new world started opening up to me. I suddenly started finding people who looked at spiritual experiences from a philosophically rational stance instead of having reactionary hissy-fits. Since then, just about anyone to the logical right of PMH, but to the transcendent left of Richard Dawkins is cool to me. :-)

[J9]

e is @ 2.1718. Bernoulli discovered it while working on a problem in compound interest. (We still use e in continuously compounding interest today, A = P*e^rt which gives you the amount of money you have, A, after investing a principal amount, P, over t years at a rate of r%.)

However, the function e^x is the only function whose derivative (instantaneous rate of change at any value) is equal to itself. This is remarkable in itself.

I remember asking about e the first time it came up in precalc in college. My instructor said that some numbers occur so much when investigating math that they have to be given a symbol. This made my whole body flush. It was the first time I realized the universe had patterns and order.

Consider if you measure head to toe and divide that measurement by the measure you get navel to toe you get, the number you get is the same number everyone will get (of course you would have to have a precise measuring tool). This number is the golden ratio. It can be done with shoulder to wrist divided by elbow to wrist and other joints as well.

Fascinating stuff. Lol

[J9]

Sorry I meant 2.718. Typo

[Ray]

@rabbitdawg

That is exactly why I'm here. It's a wonderful community of rational thinkers who live up to what the word sceptic means who follow the data to where it leads them. Of course some of the conclusions are different but debate is always good as it certainly challenges my beliefs to get closer to the truth.

[Bruce Siegel]

"After clicking onto a post where Michael discussed her, a whole new world started opening up to me. I suddenly started finding people who looked at spiritual experiences from a philosophically rational stance instead of having reactionary hissy-fits."

That's a great point about our host, and it expresses well why I myself have been hanging out on this blog for many years. Michael beautifully demonstrates the need for a balance between the mystical and the rational or intellectual.

At times, though, for my taste, he veers a bit too much towards the latter. (As in this data-as-fundamental kick.) And that's where I enjoy jumping into the fray!

Sorry to talk about you in the third person, Michael. :o)

Bernardo shows a similar balance in his writings. And, to be honest, where he gets really abstract, I tend to lose interest.

I'm just getting to know Bernardo, but his worldview, and some of his most profound experiences, seem extremely close to my mine. *Idealism* is the key--a word that he himself introduced me to, and which I quickly came to understand is a good descriptor for the way I see things.

By the way, PMH has never been one of my favorite authors, either. As is often the case, I really like her account of her own NDE, and am less comfortable with other things she has to say, or maybe it's the way she says them.

Good to chat with you, RD!

[Sophie]

J9,

'His theories were laughed at twenty years ago. Now his research on making order out of chaos is used in many fields.'

That does not mean that some theories are not laughable. Besides, Elvidge does not get around to constructing a theory. He makes wild grabs at the immaterialist (Idealist) theories of Bishop Berkeley (turn, 17th century) that began with the proposition that material things have no objective existence, but exist only in our minds because we perceive them, and in fact, the real objects of our perception are light and colour, not things. This is quite fertile theory to revisit. Einstein harked back to it and gave it a new use in his theory of relativity, and MCluhan gave it several new twists for his own purposes. Elvidge's problem is that he cannot seem to get around to twisting consciousness into his re-visit, so no theoretical construct arises – neither about the nature of consciousness nor about anything else.

It is probably tempting for people who know their physics to have a go at constructing a theory of consciousness that will fit in with the body of theoretical physics. It was a valid criticism of the survivalist position that that the survival of consciousness thesis is incapable of a theoretical construct. But several theorists have now supplied the desired construct. There is the brilliant one of Henry Stapp's that he outlines here: http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=41396.0 Brian Josephson (Cambridge, UK) also has one that I am told is impressive. (I've yet to read it.)

Bruce,

'I will never, ever, forget my own profound journey that culminated with the thought: So that's it! This is all a dream within a dream within a dream . . .'.

Aw ... I wish you'd tell!

[Bruce Siegel]

By the way, I keep using the word "mystical," and that's probably a mistake. Instead, it might be better to say *experiential*.

Mysticism has a lot of baggage attached to it. To most people the word carries the association of fuzziness and imprecision. But to me it means exactly the opposite--it's the one way of grasping reality that allows for no cloudiness or distortion whatsoever, because it operates without intermediaries--not even language itself.

The mystic knows what he knows through direct perception of the truth.

The thing is, we tend not to trust this way of knowing. Which is why I'm so pleased that Eben Alexander's book will be out in two days :o) As of yesterday, it was #1 on Amazon in paperbacks, and #1 in Kindle under the separate categories of Medicine and Science. Not bad for a book that's not yet released!

Sophie said:
"Aw ... I wish you'd tell!"

Let me think about that. :o)

[Michael Prescott]

Cool. I had no idea I had a page on RationalWiki, whatever that is. It misrepresents my views, but that's par for the course. I liked it.

[Sophie]

Soldier, what do you do to look at data 'objectively' ... become a robot? And when you finish looking? Dunno?

FYI: The intelligent reader of Michael Prescott's blog is instantly impressed by the breadth of his knowledge of the scientific and philosophical discourse in paranormal studies, by the scrupulous fairness of his appraisals, and by the breadth and liberality of his perspectives. Try reading some of his writings. You might advise your rationalwiki friends to do likewise.

Note also that Mr Prescott opens his blog to commentators, and is not interested in censoring them. Do your semi-literate 'critics' at rationalwiki rise to that? Nope! They have sealed off their childish lies about Mr Prescott hermetically.

[J9]

Here, here Sophie.

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks to everyone for the kind words in defense of your humble host. But I wasn't just putting on a stiff upper lip when I said the Wiki piece didn't bother me. In fact, I got a kick out of it.

Speaking of kicks, there's an old saying: 'Nobody ever kicked a dead dog.' It means they don't bother to attack you unless they fear you're effective. So a piece like this is really a backhanded compliment, in addition to being highly entertaining in its own right.

[Matt Rouge]

I think you're on target with that, Michael!

[Barbara]

I'd be surprised if anyone over the age of 17 admires that wiki article. I'm not sure which makes me cringe more -the adolescent style, the blatant lies or the faux logical positivist agenda.

[Ray]

It has the same flow as Randi's encylopedia of the Occult, you know the one that states DD Hume held a harmonica in his mustache in bright light and accused Gladys Osborne Leonard of being a "failed actor" which motivated her to con people with medium performances, I guess I need to reallocate my energy elsewhere because this will be never ending.

[Sophie]

rationalwiki: '... ectoplasm ... all investigations into the substance turned out to be butter, muslin and the result of fraud.'

The geniuses at rationalwiki have hit upon 'investigations' that were 'butter, muslin and the result of fraud'. Now there's rational!

I suppose the greater in number the seriously stupid debunkers the better. But Michael, despite your unquenchable sense of fun, I think a 'backhanded complement' from lying little nincompoops has to be acknowledged with a hefty kick up the ... I should be glad to do the honours.

Barbara,

I doubt that this rationalwiki lot can even spell 'logical positivist', let alone make anything to do with logical positivism their agenda. And, in the present state of play, I rather think that the logical positivists would prefer to do without the 'help' of the rationalwiki ilk of moron.

[Douglas]

That's nothing. Try the PZ Myers forum. The comments there verge on vile.

Actually, forget 'verge', some of them actually are vile.

Many of them do strike me as juvenile. I get the impression of youngsters who may have been brought up within strict backgrounds of religious conformity, and who are now experiencing the newfound freedom of athiesm for the first time.

They now think they are 'where its at' and don't mind telling everyone else... in their face.

Douglas

[RabbitDawg]

" http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Prescott
Critics point out that Prescott does not look at the data objectively and that he is a promoter of pseudoscience".

The pseudo-skeptics have their Wikipedia wannabe, but ours has more class:
http://redpill.dailygrail.com/wiki/Main_Page

One of my favorite entries:
http://redpill.dailygrail.com/wiki/Leonora_Piper

[Michael Prescott]

Soldier, one of the books you cited was The Spiritualists, by Ruth Brandon. I talked a little about about that book here (although I didn't read much of it, as I found her approach dishonest, for reasons given in the post):

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/02/a_yardstick_for.html

Regarding the various skeptical explanations you list, I'd say some may have merit in certain cases, but not in the strongest cases. For instance, hallucination and hysteria can hardly account for studies of mental mediumship in which the sessions were stenographically recorded. I don't think any of the proffered explanations can cover the "book and newspaper tests" conducted with Gladys Osborn Leonard, or the Bobby Newlove case (also involving Leonard), or the cross correspondences, or the R-101 case (Eileen Garrett), or the grandmaster chess match case we discussed here pretty recently, etc. etc. Many such cases are presented at the Survival Top 40 site:

http://www.aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml

No doubt there have been many frauds. Personally I think Helen Duncan, Arthur Ford, and Madame Blavatsky, among many others, were at least partial frauds. I also have a low opinion of Sylvia Browne, to mention one contemporary name.

You seem to have come in at the middle of a conversation, not realizing how much discussion has come before. There have been long exchanges on this blog about fraud, hysteria (mania, I call it), super-psi, and other alternatives to the idea of "spirits." Over a long period of time I've come to believe that the spirit hypothesis is correct, and that the other hypotheses don't cover all the facts, though they may cover some of them. I do think fraud has been a significant factor in mediumship (see Lamar Keene's book The Psychic Mafia for a good discussion), and that the Spiritualist movement in its heyday had some of the properties of a "mania." But when all is said and done, I think the best cases trump the debunkers' best efforts. See Chris Carter's latest book, Science and the Afterlife Experience, for more on this.

It's also persuasive to me that so many different kinds of research point to the same conclusion. NDEs, past-life recall, apparitions, EVP/ITC, deathbed visions, and mystical experiences all tend to reinforce mediumship (and each other). I'm not sure any single line of evidence would be enough to convince me, but converging lines of evidence from many different types of studies can be pretty compelling. Robert Crookall wrote a series of books showing how a variety of evidence from different sources dovetails on the same general conclusions; his book Intimations of Immortality is especially good.

[Bruce Siegel]

"I am not denying that spirits can exist, perhaps they do (I believe in them!)"

Just to clarify, Soldier. You believe (with an exclamation point) that spirits exist, so I take it you believe in survival?

[Michael Prescott]

Is anyone else getting the impression that Soldier wrote the Wiki piece? :-)

[Bruce Siegel]

"Bruce I believe in life after death, dimensions, telepathy and many other things. I am just honest enough to admit there is no scientific evidence for these things and that science is not based on my personal beliefs."

You have an interesting perspective, Soldier. I might agree with you that it's hard to find *proof* according to science's limited methods. I'm not so sure I'd go along with the no scientific *evidence* part.

At any rate, you and I do share some common ground. We both seem to feel that the ultimate or best proof of these matters does not lie in the lap of science, as it's currently practiced. What I always like to stress is the value of personal experience and self-exploration.

[Sophie]

Poor Soldier: mutates, then scarpers. He has exactly no idea what Michael has or has not said about proof and the afterlife. So why the attack? He and Zammit should bring their Michael fantasies together. Zammit could do his 'Michael the rottenest of low-life debunkers', and Soldier his 'Michael the most wrongest-est proof sayer'. (Michael, these are two characters in search of an author. How about a new novel?)

Bruce,

'the ultimate or best proof of these matters does not lie in the lap of science'

I think I remember correctly that Michael thinks so too.

[Kathleen]

I've written about this before, but isn't science also about observation, and not just repeatable experiments? Your average African lion won't behave the same way in a lab as it does in the wild, but observation of it in the wild is still considered science. And just a few hundred years ago, it was probably considered impossible or infeasible that we could ever come to understand such creatures, and yet now we do.

[Matt Rouge]

Soldier,

Don't forget what happens to belligerents when they are caught out of uniform...

[Sleepers]

Your certainty, Soldier, in regard to mediumship being 100% fake worries me. Have you read the R-101 case? Whats the rebuttal, super-psi? It is pretty convincing. 100% at anything is ignorant. Surprised Zerdini hasn't weighed in yet on this one.

[Michael Prescott]

That was a pretty strange monologue from Soldier. Does he really think it's impossible to scientifically test psi? The ganzfeld tests were scientific, and so are many other tests conducted over the past 100 years or so. I'm not sure what he has against Dean Radin and Charles Tart, but both have made significant contributions to parapsychology (which is a science, after all, albeit frequently more similar to a 'soft' science like field anthropology than to a 'hard' science like particle physics). The term 'paranormal' doesn't mean 'beyond scientific testing,' it means 'beyond ordinary experience.'

As for mediums, it's just incorrect to say that every medium subjected to scientific investigation has been discredited. Leonora Piper, Gladys Osborn Leonard, and Eileen Garrett were all extensively tested for decades, and none was ever discredited.

Most of the explanations offered in Soldier's list (hallucination, hysteria, etc.) fall under the category of logical possibilities - options that can't be dismissed, but for which there is no actual evidence. Chris Carter's latest book deals with this issue very ably. Anyone can spin stories based on undisprovable scenarios, but reasonable doubt is grounded in actual evidence, not hypotheticals.

It's kind of amusing that Soldier criticizes afterlife proponents for relying on old books when most of the books he recommends are equally old. Anyway, the reason for reading these older studies is that trance mediums were more common in those days, and serious investigative efforts into mediumship were also more common than they are today. There was a long hiatus in such research from about 1940 to 1990, owing largely to the materialist triumphalism of that era. But things are changing. In recent years we've seen studies by Schwartz, Beischel, Robinson & Roy, and others.

[Sleepers]

Fraud just seems more likely now than of times past. Technological increases seem to add more "tools" for those who perform "illusions" of the paranormal. Eileen Garrett really didn't have the elaborate means to google search the R-101 and glean all the information she gave. I think we take for granted just how difficult it was to commit such massive frauds, without everything at our fingertips like we have now. Older cases are probably much more credible.

[hoperivers]

Has anyone read Phillip Harris's ebook on Law of Attraction called "Jesus taught it too", here's a link below for those interested. Having had paranormal experiences in my past , one can try to justify everything is all belief (thought) manifestations as some have tried and still believe, but it ultimately leaves one more hopeful than ever in an afterlife and its creation. One of my personal experiences has left me with more than a hopeful confidence but like some people figuring out the puzzle of religion thoughts (ideas and beliefs) and self experience has become a passionate lifetime investigation for truth. By the way I dont believe the author is Christian, he also doesn't address every question (ie people born deformed or in poverty stricken countries etc) A religious person would even say cherry picking is going on here but thought is transferred through direct (ancestors) through to future generation it may determine the health of a child at some point down the line. No different to passing a genetic condition in ways we already know. Of course why some are diseased in a family and some aren't is always going to be debate. Hope I'm making sense?

http://www.psitek.net/pages/PsiTek-jesus-taught-it-too-Contents.html

[Roger Knights]

As a Math teacher, I tell my students everyday that the universe has order. All you have to do is look at the numbers pi and e (yes, I said the number e) and their occurence in nature to see that. That along with the golden ratio.

Posted by: J9 | October 21, 2012 at 11:00 AM

And Fibonacci.

[Sophie]

A friend from whom I did not expect it came out with a personal story about a medium. She, aged about 4 years, was staying with her grandparents when a noisy conversation in her grandparents' living room woke her. She left her bed to creep downstairs to investigate, and was terrified to see her grandmother with a peculiar expression on her face and speaking in a man's voice.

It was only when she was an adult (40s) that she related this to her mother. Her mother was not at all surprised, and shrugged it off with 'Oh yes, she had the power'.

This is a case in which one woman simply took it in her stride that her mother was a direct-voice medium. Had this been somehow sensational in her childhood context, she surely would have told her daughter about it.

My friend's scenario reminds me strongly of John Sloan's séances as Arthur Findlay describes them. Perhaps practising mediums are far more common than we realise. Many just do not come forward as public performers, and are therefore not available for testing?

[Paul]

@Sophie small point: if the voice was coming from the mediums mouth, I don't think this would be 'direct voice' as I understand it, but more likely trance mediumship.

I know, I ought to get out more.....

[Ray]

@Soldier,

I can understand the skepticism toward mediumship, believe me I can but 100% ? That just doesn't hold up for the best cases. What your are essentially is that 100s of scientist who studied this in the past were either duped, in on it or

One of your references, Frank Prodmore, a notorious SPR Skeptic in his day, even concluded that he had no explanation for Mrs. Piper (although he leaned more toward the telepathy explanation). I think you might need to read the literature on both sides. Most of these books that explain it away by with psychological deficiencies are pet theories by the author to make sense of what occurred but it doesn't match with the actual facts of some of the best observed mediumship. I guess this something I will have to agree to disagree with you on but I do appreciate you explaining how you came to your conclusions.

[Ray]

Sorry I really need to responding on my iPhone

[Juan]

Soldier, your arrogance bothers me, because you have certainty that there can not be scientific evidence for psi phenomena, but epistemologists and philosophers of science have hundreds of years discussing what "science". I think it is reasonable to imagine that science is the attempt of human beings to achieve a knowledge of what exists as free of errors, biases and flaws. Thus, the difference between personal experience and scientific experience is only gradual. Sure, because the scientific experience is ultimately based on the experience of people. So if we have personal experience of psi phenomena, we may have scientific experience of psi phenomena, because both types of experiences are part of the same continuum. Sure, it's difficult to have scientific evidence of psi phenomena, since they may not be reproducible at will, are very fickle, etc., but possible.

When you claim that psi phenomena are not repeatable, you show an incredible naivete, because psi phenomena are not punctually repeatable, unlike what happens in the natural sciences, but they are statistically repeatable, as in the human sciences. Of course, according to your ideas, human sciences, including psychology, even though you claim that all cases of mediumship has a purely psychological explanation, are not sciences, but the fact is that they are sciences, although not as precise and rigorous science as natural sciences. You do not realize that the natural sciences, the human sciences and the personal experience are part of the same continuum of experiences. In addition there are many phenomena that are not repeatable and yet considered scientifically approachable, as the Big Bang, which seems to be unique by definition, the fall of meteorites, mass extinction of species in the past, etc.

Also you claim that paranormal or supernatural phenomena are beyond science because they are immaterial phenomena and science only studies matter, you commit three errors.

First, you equate paranormal with supernatural, but this is a mistake, no one says that paranormal phenomena have to be supernatural. The supernatural is what is beyond nature, but the paranormal is just what does not fit with our current theories, which is anomalous for our conception of the universe, but it can be part of nature. To find out if something is supernatural, we should know what is nature, but the fact is that nobody knows what is nature. Physicists now tell us that there are quantum fields as part of nature, but in the past would have been considered supernatural. The same may happen with what today seems paranormal.

Second, you assume that science can only study the material, but science simply studying that exists, and if there are immaterial causes acting in nature, science can study these causes theoretically. It is a typical materialistic mistake: science is not materialistic by definition, because it tells us at the outset that exists in the world, but to know what in the world is a matter of empirical research, and empirical research can show that's immaterial causes acting in nature.

And third, psi phenomena may be material, in the sense of being explained by nonlocal fields of information. The spirits of the dead may be material, but made of a currently unknown matter. We know that ordinary matter is mostly empty and even now we do not know what is not empty, so we are far from ensuring that psi phenomena are not material simply because we do not know what the matter as we do not know what is reality.

About mediumship, the followers of this blog know that there are many cases of fraud and often explicable only in ordinary psychological terms, but there are some cases that are not explicable in terms of modern physics, biology or psychology. Cases that have been studied by the Society for Psychical Research, scientific studies that were seized because sufficient rigor to be part of the human sciences. These cases are so robust that we have reached the point where only raised two hypotheses to explain these cases: the afterlife hypothesis and the super-psi hypothesis, the first hypothesis more plausible enough for certain cases.

Besides the investigation of the afterlife is not exhausted in mediumship, but there are many other types of phenomena that provide converging evidence for the afterlife, as Michael said. Evidence which is not only anecdotal, but also experimental, and is part of science as well as the other human sciences.

[Douglas]

It seems to me that the fact that some of the best research is 70 to 100+ years old is due to the fact that science looked to be going a long way to validating life after death, and the golden era of research dates to this time, but then the emerging discipline of Parapsychology appears to have gone off on a tangent, from which it has never fully recovered.

At the same time, Michael is correct in pointing out that some maverick researchers since the 1990s are starting to get things back on track again.

After reading Chris Carter's latest book, I was left amazed at how it all this early progress seemed seemed to go off the rails.

Apologies for all the train metaphors!

[Zerdini]

"@Sophie small point: if the voice was coming from the mediums mouth, I don't think this would be 'direct voice' as I understand it, but more likely trance mediumship. "

Paul is quite correct in describing it as trance mediumship rather than 'direct voice' mediumship.

For more about direct voice mediumship see my website.

[Art]

For the record "Science" is full of fraud. I quit being enamored of "Science" when I saw Lab Technicians go out back of the building and light up doobie before going back into work. Not to mention I saw a researcher cross off data that didn't match what they expected, saying "must have been something wrong with the sample."

I worked in biomedical research for 17 years. What I learned is that personality, ego, greed, and the need to survive affect all human experience, including scientific endeavors. There is no such thing as "pure science" that is unaffected by the human ego.

So everything in life is colored by our perceptions, our feelings, emotions, and you have to make judgements in your own mind whether to believe it or not. When I read a book I am the one that has to decide whether I want to believe it or not. When I read a story I have to decide whether I think it is true or not. No one else can decide that for me. It is irrelevant what anyone else says they think or believe.

My point is that I have long since quit caring what skeptics believe or say. I don't even bother to read what they write. If they have decided that they don't believe.... it is their loss. If they want to go through life not believing, it is their right. I don't care. We will all find out the truth when it comes out turn to cross over, and trust me, it will come soon enough.

Life is a vapor, a mist, and we are only here for a short while. The blink of an eye compared to eternity. I will soon be 60 years old and I think back to my college years, which were the happiest time of my life, and it doesn't seem that long ago. It is difficult for me to believe it was 40 years ago. Where did the time go?

So, I just have to wait a little longer and I will have my answers. We will see who was right and who was wrong. For now it is irrelevant what anyone else espouses. What matters is what is in my own heart. Because I am the only one that has to live with myself. I am just trying to live in this world, and believing that one day I will see my mother again makes life a little easier.

[Douglas]

A heartfelt post there Art.

The science world is an academic world, and the academic world, from my own experience of it while a student, and from the lecturers who candidly talked about their work, is very much the lion's den, a snake pit where only the toughest survive. It's a form of Social Darwinism.

The fact that it's gone off on a materialist tangent is very frustrating, because it's so hard to break this mindset down due to the way the academic world operates.

[Art]

"Glimpses of Eternity". That is what we are allowed to see. Reminds me of the game "whack-a-mole" where just when you think you've got one "mole" whacked another one pops up it's head. Just when the skeptics think they've silenced Pam Reynold's NDE - Dr. Eben Alexander and Dr. Mary Neal, a neurosurgeon and an orthopedic surgeon pop up their heads and say "it's all real, I've been there!"

The skeptics have their work cut out for them. It's not one line of evidence but a whole picture puzzle of pieces that all fit together to give us a glimpse of eternity that seem to tell us that this life is not all there is. Mediums, Near Death Experiences, death bed visions, after death communications, mystical and transcendental experiences, and yes even reincarnation stories (as much as I dislike the idea of it) all seem to tell us that our life doesn't end with the death of the physical body.

So let the skeptics rant and rave. I doubt very much that they will be able to silence the other side. There will always be "glimpses of eternity" for us to ponder what lies beyond the grave.

[Sophie]

Paul and Zerdini,

Thank you for clarifying the difference between the 'direct voice' and the 'trance' medium. Zerdini, I shall gladly go to your site for further explanation: I do that often anyway.

Art,

'My point is that I have long since quit caring what skeptics believe or say. I don't even bother to read what they write. If they have decided that they don't believe.... '

Remember that sceptics are not deniers. Rather, they have outstanding questions that either keep them well short of belief, or have them fence-sitting, like even Michael was doing a very short while ago. (See his review of Chris Carter's book.) Sceptics are thinkers. This makes them rather more valuable than dogmatic believers: they keep the enquiry going. You have dogmatic deniers in logicians like Dennett and Searle. They will not even look at the survivalist side. And you have sceptics like Robert Almeder, who wrote the foreword to Chris Carter's book.

Yippip hurray I have Eben Alexander's book! I had ordered it from Amazon in mid-August. Amazon sent me an email yesterday, advising me that it has been shipped, and will arrive (UK) on 27 November [sic]! Luckily, my local bookshop, Waterstones, had it today, 23rd October (release date). Guess who is never dealing with Amazon again.