Death Anxiety (but not what u think)

I believe the alternative to truth-seeking is faith. Why is it so pervasive to scrutinize the subtle suggestions we have that death is not the end?

I think the "perverse" compulsion to keep questioning the validity of the evidence (including intuitive psychic suggestions) for an afterlife is quite understandable as just the effects of the instinctual dread of death defined by Becker, along with the effects of our secular society, including defense of the ego. This is generated by the instinctual drive for self-preservation psychologically conflicting with sure knowledge of upcoming physical death, poisonously combining with deep societal programming and brainwashing into materialist scientism (which of course totally denies even the possibility of survival and dismisses all of the survival evidence), and with the deeply ingrained human animal instinctual identification of the self as the obviously physical, fragile and impermanent body and brain.

Scientism has become extremely pervasive and powerful psychologically in the general population of our society, and to add another dimension to the problem, it fosters a sort of aggressive psychological defense of its deeply embedded materialism against any conflicting views, since these conflicting spiritual nonmaterialistic views would demolish the embedded materialism which has become part of the ego. The ego defends itself.

These factors automatically and indefinitely foster an at least in part irrational persistent aggravating niggling doubt of survival regardless of the persuasiveness of the survival evidence and any otherwise convincing philosophical arguments against materialism.

I believe the alternative to truth-seeking is faith. Why is it so pervasive to scrutinize the subtle suggestions we have that death is not the end?

I wish we could talk without resort to slogans!

My point is that NO scientific evidence can be totally blemish-free. If a chemistry experiment produces an unpalatable answer you can always claim that the test tubes must have been dirty, or that if they had been pre-cleaned with a suitable solvent, that the solvent must be contaminated ......... It is vital that science in general doesn't hold itself to such high standards, it is only in relation to psi-research that critics feel they can throw such criticism in an endless chain.

Somehow it seems that the concept of life after death (or before birth) are most detested, and psi in general is hated a little less vigorously! Thus critics seriously propose that some mediums may be deploying super-psi (i.e. very strong psi) to produce evidence that they can contact dead individuals. I.e. the critics would rather concede strong psi in order to continue to claim that life after death is unproven!

This just isn't science.

David

I wish we could talk without resort to slogans!

My point is that NO scientific evidence can be totally blemish-free. If a chemistry experiment produces an unpalatable answer you can always claim that the test tubes must have been dirty, or that if they had been pre-cleaned with a suitable solvent, that the solvent must be contaminated ......... It is vital that science in general doesn't hold itself to such high standards, it is only in relation to psi-research that critics feel they can throw such criticism in an endless chain.

Somehow it seems that the concept of life after death (or before birth) are most detested, and psi in general is hated a little less vigorously! Thus critics seriously propose that some mediums may be deploying super-psi (i.e. very strong psi) to produce evidence that they can contact dead individuals. I.e. the critics would rather concede strong psi in order to continue to claim that life after death is unproven!

This just isn't science.

David

I ultimately do agree that Super Psi explanations feel increasingly absurd but it is worth nothing that the idea was brought up due to the certain results from mediumship specifically.

There are definitely cases that can make a person wonder if there is genuine communication from the dead or some psychic creativity among the living, but I think an in-depth study of the matter leans - arguably quite heavily - toward Survival.

I ultimately do agree that Super Psi explanations feel increasingly absurd but it is worth nothing that the idea was brought up due to the certain results from mediumship specifically.

There are definitely cases that can make a person wonder if there is genuine communication from the dead or some psychic creativity among the living, but I think an in-depth study of the matter leans - arguably quite heavily - toward Survival.

Do you have a link? I know SP is mainly used to try to 'debunk' mediums, but the work of most mediums could be attacked this way, but the approach seems to me to be fundamentally dishonest unless the sceptic also acknowledges that his results do support a paranormal phenomenon.

David

Do you have a link? I know SP is mainly used to try to 'debunk' mediums, but the work of most mediums could be attacked this way, but the approach seems to me to be fundamentally dishonest unless the sceptic also acknowledges that his results do support a paranormal phenomenon.

David

Probably Braude's Immortal Remains. (I think you've already read the thread I made about it...)

I don't recall if it's the first ever case but in 1925 when Dr. SG Soal went to the medium Blanche Cooper he was given a variety of details about his supposedly dead friend Gordon Davis and even the speech seemed to match. Later Soal finds that Davis is in fact still alive.

Details from the Psi Encyclopedia ->

This rare anomaly has made the ‘Gordon Davis’ case notable in the literature of psychical research, and one that is often cited in opposition to mediumship as evidence of survival of death. There are other examples of the phenomenon; however, in the light of subsequent revelations of Soal’s systematic fraud in telepathy experiments questions have been raised about the reliability of this particular example. Long after his death, exercise books containing Soal’s handwritten notes of the Cooper sittings were found in a second-hand shop. The content fairly tallies with his published quotes. On the other hand there is a surprising lack of contrast between the notes supposedly written with his left hand during the dark séances and the notes written normally afterwards. Irregularities in sequencing mean that the document cannot serve as proof that everything was written on the dates marked, so the case still relies on Soal’s testimony. Over time Soal expressed contradictory sentiments about the Cooper material, sometimes dismissing it as unreliable, but on at least one occasion asserting that his experiences with Cooper formed the bedrock of his belief in the paranormal.2

To be clear I do think a thorough examination of evidence leads one to pick Survival over Super Psi, interestingly enough due to *lack* of knowledge on the part of the dead. One could claim the sub-personality of the medium is now purposefully hiding information but IMO this ventures into the ridiculous.

And I do think you are correct that some of the Super Psi advocacy is from people who are convinced psychic powers are real but balk at the idea of there being an afterlife. However the original formulation seems to have been on somewhat valid grounds.

Probably Braude's Immortal Remains. (I think you've already read the thread I made about it...)

I don't recall if it's the first ever case but in 1925 when Dr. SG Soal went to the medium Blanche Cooper he was given a variety of details about his supposedly dead friend Gordon Davis and even the speech seemed to match. Later Soal finds that Davis is in fact still alive.

Details from the Psi Encyclopedia ->


To be clear I do think a thorough examination of evidence leads one to pick Survival over Super Psi, interestingly enough due to *lack* of knowledge on the part of the dead. One could claim the sub-personality of the medium is now purposefully hiding information but IMO this ventures into the ridiculous.

And I do think you are correct that some of the Super Psi advocacy is from people who are convinced psychic powers are real but balk at the idea of there being an afterlife. However the original formulation seems to have been on somewhat valid grounds.

I think abductive reasoning to the best explanation of several competing explanations considering all the types of paranormal data leads overwhelmingly to Survival being the predominant explanation, with Super Psi being a possible explanation only in a small percentage of cases primarily in mediumistic communications. This is because the empirical evidence for survival dramatically outweighs SP primarily due to the large amount of veridical NDE data and veridical cases of the reincarnation kind. In these cases SP is ridiculous as an explanation.

Since reincarnation was mentioned, and super psi too, I feel I should point out - for the umpteenth time - that reincarnation is not about grabbing information and regurgitating it. It's something else. It's a state of being. What does it feel like to be you?

That state of being, of self, of identity, is at the heart of it. And far from the idea of being confused into thinking one is someone else, that is going off into the weeds and getting lost. It is not about thinking one is someone else. It is simply about thinking one is oneself. That is the nub of reincarnation.

I guess I'm saying reincarnation doesn't matter, in that it is the present which matters. Similarly I suppose I'm saying death doesn't matter, it is only living which matters.

But that might sound very glib, too much simplification of things which deserve more depth. You'd be right if you thought that.

It's just that I battled through these things decades ago, when most people were doing other things, getting a career or having children. I felt I could not do any of those things until I'd got to the bottom of my own existence and what it was about. It was dirty, messy, painful, nothing esoteric or refined. Just the nitty-gritty of life. But out of it it seemed I felt released and felt immortal* - not my body, that is fragile, but my self.

So it's because I trawled through these things, scraping down to the bedrock of my existence, that I nowadays make simplified, almost trivial comments. None of this is something I can explain, it's just that we all must find our own path through our own struggles, each in our own way.

* I don't like that word, it feels loaded with connotations, but I'll leave it be.

And I do think you are correct that some of the Super Psi advocacy is from people who are convinced psychic powers are real but balk at the idea of there being an afterlife. However the original formulation seems to have been on somewhat valid grounds.

I think the proponents of the idea of Super-Psi would need to openly propose the idea and supply the evidence for this process based on more than one or two isolated cases, if they want to use it to deny the evidence for survival. The opponents of psi are allowed to bend the normal rules of logic out of recognition.

Actually, I think any definite example of psi totally overturns our view of reality. It is irrational to suggest (I don't mean you!) that some psi phenomena may be real but science can continue as usual.

David

Since reincarnation was mentioned, and super psi too, I feel I should point out - for the umpteenth time - that reincarnation is not about grabbing information and regurgitating it. It's something else. It's a state of being. What does it feel like to be you?

That state of being, of self, of identity, is at the heart of it. And far from the idea of being confused into thinking one is someone else, that is going off into the weeds and getting lost. It is not about thinking one is someone else. It is simply about thinking one is oneself. That is the nub of reincarnation.

That's why suggesting that the reincarnation evidence for survival is really due to Super Psi is so ridiculous. The same applies to the NDE OBE data. It's pathetic that the SP advocates are so afraid of survival and the afterlife that they can seriously attempt to propose SP as a blanket explanation for all survival evidence. Sure, it can partially explain some of the apparent evidence for survival from mediumistic communications, but it can't go much further than that.