Psience Quest

(2017-08-21, 01:50 AM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]Just to follow up on Pollux' post, in the video interview I posted with Mavis Pittilla (here), she mentions that in the last 15-17 years or so there seems to have developed a new form of mental mediumship (as opposed to clairvoyance, clairaudience, clairsentience) that is called "claircognitive", but doesn't seem to be what the medium in this video is doing.

X2

I asked this mental medium Cindy Kaza in a MeetnGreet session that very question. She concurred (as she should considering the incredible demonstration of evidential claircognition). Mental and physical mediumship is evolving, rapidly in many cases, one evolution is the amount of information that is coming through many modern mental mediums per sitter. Kaza can work with a single sitter or a group of related sitters and a single discarnate or a group of (loosely) related discarnates for 15-20 minutes or more.

(2017-08-29, 08:33 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Such as?

Are you asking me what the different types of mediumship are?

(2017-08-29, 07:52 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]Please don't post rational wiki links like it's a credible source. The website does the 'skeptical' side a disservice, and regularly insults famous proponents and parapsychologists. Not very rational really.

I'd like to add my voice to the chorus against rational wiki. It is so one sided and predictable in it's POV that only a confirmed skeptic, or an ignoramus would use it as a neutral source of information. 

And the confirmed skeptic doesn't count because they aren't really looking for a neutral source just confirmation. So that just leaves the ignoramus...

(2017-08-29, 06:52 PM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]What do you think of this..

SAUNDERS, E Private 116024 21/10/191 Gun Corps (Infantry) United Kingdom I. A. 9. HIGHLAND CEMETERY, LE CATEAU

(sorry if it is one you've already mentioned) The only other info I could get was this:
"SAUNDERS, Pte. E., 116024 18thBn. Machine Gun Corps (inf). 21st Oct., 1918. Age 24.Son of Henry and Mary Saunders, of "South View" Mulfoirds Hill, Tadley, Basingstoke. " Apparently this is the name on the gravestone too. I am guessing he'd have been born around 1894?

I'll try and check the census for 1911 and see if he appears in full name on it.

Looking at the ancestry.co.uk version of "Soldiers Died in the Great War", that date of death returns an Ernest Saunders.

Unfortunately Erics were a lot rarer than Ernies in those days.

(2017-08-29, 08:36 PM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]Are you asking me what the different types of mediumship are?

No. I'm asking you which kind you had in mind when you responded that my previous post somehow depended on the type of mediumship. Put another way,,, which type of medium communication would you suggest is distinguishable from telepathy?

I assume you had a particular one in mind that brought my statement into question.. ? You wouldn't just say that for no reason,,, would you?

In case it is unclear, here is what I said- 
Unfortunately it seems to me that no test of communication with the deceased could be created that would eliminate the claim that the actual sitter's mind is being "read".

(2017-08-29, 08:51 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]No. I'm asking you which kind you had in mind when you responded that my previous post somehow depended on the type of mediumship. Put another way,,, which type of medium communication would you suggest is distinguishable from telepathy?

I assume you had a particular one in mind that brought my statement into question.. ? You wouldn't just say that for no reason,,, would you?

In case it is unclear, here is what I said- Unfortunately it seems to me that no test of communication with the deceased could be created that would eliminate the claim that the actual sitter's mind is being "read".

This should be good.

(2017-08-20, 03:32 AM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]Just came across this and thought I'd share it FWIW.

Matt Fraser (medium) makes a very good point about skeptics being called on preferentially during group readings (platform work). 

FYI you silly skepticals that you are! 

(2017-08-29, 08:44 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Looking at the ancestry.co.uk version of "Soldiers Died in the Great War", that date of death returns an Ernest Saunders.

Unfortunately Erics were a lot rarer than Ernies in those days.

Haha well done Chris. I will have to leave it for now but I can feel the urge to trawl the census data

(2017-08-29, 08:51 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]No. I'm asking you which kind you had in mind when you responded that my previous post somehow depended on the type of mediumship. Put another way,,, which type of medium communication would you suggest is distinguishable from telepathy?

I assume you had a particular one in mind that brought my statement into question.. ? You wouldn't just say that for no reason,,, would you?

Ah ok. Well I can't see how telepathy could realistically be proposed for:
1) Independent Direct Voice mediumship;
2) Full form materialisation mediumship;
3) Trance when the communication is directly from the purported communicator.
4) Instances of mental mediumship where the information revealed is known by no living person.

(2017-08-29, 10:02 PM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]Ah ok. Well I can't see how telepathy could realistically be proposed for:
1) Independent Direct Voice mediumship;
2) Full form materialisation mediumship;
3) Trance when the communication is directly from the purported communicator.
4) Instances of mental mediumship where the information revealed is known by no living person.

snip- Unfortunately it seems to me that no test of communication with the deceased could be created that would eliminate the claim that the actual sitter's mind is being "read"

OK. Lets look at the list.

The skeptic responds as follows-
1- Direct voice. The skeptic simply says the medium used a concocted accent to confirm information that the sitter knows. Telepathy 
2- Full form. Whatever trick the medium used to create the fake form is explained away, and information is explained by telepathy. 
3- Trance. Whatever information the concocted voice passes on is gained by telepathy from whatever person knows it.
4- Mental mediumship and info the nobody knows. Sorry already discussed this one. And it is the most fun. In the rare case of information that is known by no living person (I can point to lots of examples of this), the skeptic simply points to super psi with lots of breathless references to quantum entanglement, and people's electromagnetic images, in the form of light, existing forever, flying away from earth at the speed of light.

Actually the skeptic can point to super psi in all of these cases. In fact the skeptic can point to the completely fictitious super psi in response to any possible veridical mediumship case you could conjure up. 

Well, with the exception of Physical Mediumship. As I'm sure you know, here stuff is physically "aported". Tough to argue with that, right? Unfortunately just like your case of full form mediumship, examples are so rare, and the physical proof of such even rarer, that we have a hard time substantiating it. What with all the dark rooms, the no cameras and no lights allowed and whatnot. 

There you are.

Sorry to say but as I said: other than item 4 which is a special case due to the fact that the info is unknown, which is easily defended by Mr Skeptic using the super psi, all the others can easily be attributed to telepathy.

Face it Obi- you can't outright win the argument against someone who wants to play those phony cards. Phony because they can't tell you how telepathy or super psi actually work. Hell, they don't even need to believe those things exist to use them as arguments. Given that point, they can't win the argument either. So you have a stalemate. Which is right where we have been with skeptics for over 100 years. 

As they say in poker... Read 'em and weep.

Sorry. It annoys me too.