(2017-08-24, 10:54 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Along the same lines, I know there's a fairly recent biography of Leonora Piper by Michael Tymn. Has anyone here read it, and if so would they recommend it? Or would anyone recommend anything else that's been written about her, including sceptical accounts?
I have, and it's very good. There was a discussion of this on the old-old forum, re: the 205 Skeptiko podcast:
http://forum.mind-energy.net/forum/skept...ms-podcast
I seem to remember it was discussed elsewhere too, maybe also on that forum, but I can't remember or find where.
I share your experience really. I'm not a massive fan of mental mediumship, however I've read a lot of very interesting experiences. I've seen a few mediums and not had any evidence of survival. Of course that doesn't mean that other people haven't.
(2017-08-25, 06:49 AM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]
I share your experience really. I'm not a massive fan of mental mediumship, however I've read a lot of very interesting experiences. I've seen a few mediums and not had any evidence of survival. Of course that doesn't mean that other people haven't.
I thought you were for some reason, Obi. Are you then more of a fan of phys med?
Thanks to Kamarling and Ninshub for their responses. The article on Martin Gardner was very revealing.
I'm a fan of evidence Ninshub
. My personal view is that although mental mediumship is more commmon, generally physical mediumship can offer better evidence of survival.
True, but,,,
there are other mediumship examples where the medium shares information that the sitter didn't know. So since this sort of thing has been demonstrated many times. So in case you would be using an argument which as already been shown to be invalid.
A problem is: some people will just claim that this double blind sort of case it is just an example of "Super Psi". (ahhh, super psi,,, the eventual argument for all people who want to maintain a hold on their materialist bedrock)
I've found that one needs to look at the breadth of various psi demonstrations to reach a the conclusion of the existence of psi, as there is always a way to explain away just about any demonstration of this type. For many, it is the plethora of various explanations with ever increasing levels of unlikelihood (and really, silliness) that eventually convince them that it is easier to believe in the base assertion than it is to believe in the eventually ridiculous layers of alternative explanations.
Question: why would one disbelieve in mediumship, but find it plausible to believe that one can read another's mind? What is the mechanism for that mind reading ability? And if one can't explain that psi skill, isn't it illogical to use this unexplained and possibly unbelievable skill, to argue against mediumship? I see this sort of thing all the time, and it makes no sense to me.
I agree jkmac there's quite a lot of evidence of people receiving information from mediums that was unknown to them. Just observing re the example you mention.
Interestingly, quite a lot of it doesn't necessarily imply survival either. I'm thinking of things like psychometry for instance.
(2017-08-27, 05:24 PM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]I agree jkmac there's quite a lot of evidence of people receiving information from mediums that was unknown to them. Just observing re the example you mention.
Interestingly, quite a lot of it doesn't necessarily imply survival either. I'm thinking of things like psychometry for instance.
I think it's logically impossible to prove survival, because if information is to be verifiable, the information needed to verify it has to be known by someone or has to be stored somewhere. If telepathy and clairvoyance exist, that means it is accessible through psi.
The closest I can get to a method of proving survival is to imagine someone with a phenomenal memory who could memorise a decryption key and then destroy it. But even if that could be done, and if the decryption key could be recovered by a medium, how could some process of retrocognition be ruled out? Even if the deceased had had phenomenal mental powers, and had been able to work out the key without using a computer or writing the key down, how could retrocognitive telepathy be ruled out?
Here's a case I posted a while back on the Skeptiko forum, that is evidence against telepathy with the living, but not Super-Psi proof (à la Akashic Records). It's my summary of what Arthur Findlay reports in On the Edge of the Etheric (1931). It's the "Eric Saunders" case.
It's 1919, Arthur takes his brother with him to a Direct Voice (trumpet) séance in Glasgow, Scotland. His brother is recently back from the Army (the war) and no one present knows that except for Art, nor where he was stationed (most of the time in Lowestoft, England, and sometimes in a nearby village called Kessingland, training gunners). No one present knows Art’s brother either.
During the séance, a "voice" said to Art's brother: "Eric Saunders". His brother said he didn't know him, but the voice insisted. The brother asked where they had met and the voice said "In the Army". The brother then mentioned different places (cities in England and different countries) but made sure not to mention Lowestoft where he been stationed most of the time (or Kessingland). The voice said: "No, none of these places. I knew you when you were near Lowestoft." Art's brother asked why he said "Near Lowestoft" and the voice replied "You were not in Lowestoft then, but at Kessingland".
The brother then asked what company he was in, B or C, but couldn't discern the answer. He asked the voice if he could remember the name of the company Commander. The voice said "Macnamara". Findlay goes on to report that that was indeed the name of the B Company Commander at the time.
His brother then pretended to know “Eric” (the voice) and said: “Oh yes, you were one of my Lewis gunners, were you not?” The voice replied: “No, you had not the Lewis guns then, it was the Hotchkiss.” This was indeed correct - the Lewis guns had been replaced by the Hotchkiss guns in April 1917.
Other evidential question-and-answer bits followed. Art’s brother still did not remember this man. “Eric” said he’d been killed in France and Art’s brother asked when. He answered that he’d passed away “with the Big Draft in August 1917”. The brother asked why he called it the Big Draft, and he said: “Don’t you remember the Big Draft, when the Colonel came on the parade ground and made a speech?” This referred to an especially large group sent out to France that month, and it was the only time that Art’s brother remembered the Colonel ever personally saying goodbye to the men.
“Eric” then thanked Art’s brother for the gunnery training he had given him, and said it had been most useful to him in France. The brother asked why he’d come through to speak to him, and the voice replied: “Because I have never forgotten that you once did me a good turn”. Findlay goes on to say that his brother had a vague recollection of obtaining leave for one of the gunners, because of special circumstances, but he couldn’t remember the name.
Six months after this incident, Art’s brother was in London and met the Corporal who had been his training assistant at that time. He relayed the story and asked him if he remembered a man called “Eric Saunders”. The Corporal usually got to know the men closer than Art’s brother did, because of the number of men Art’s brother had to train (about a dozen every 2 weeks for 2 years). But the Corporal did not remember any person with that name. However, he had a pocket diary that had a full list of the men under their training. They looked to the records of the B Company and found the words: “Eric Saunders, f.q., August ‘17”, with a red line drawn through them. “F.q” stood for qualified and the red line meant the man had gone away at that time (August 1917).
They couldn’t find any further information, but Findlay writes: “Even allowing for this it is a remarkable case, as it is fraud proof, telepathy proof and cryptaesthesia proof”. He goes on to add that the case contained 14 separate facts, and each one was correct.