(2023-07-01, 11:09 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, I've just noticed a there is a database... for each mediums answers (in Italian) I presume, with columns of 'interact' and 'no interact' (I don't understand the significance of these). I'll just post the first two mediums answers translated in google... I can't be bothered to do more, because it's even worse than I expected, the answers are almost entirely obvious, vague, or highly likely/common.
You've managed to casually trash a lot of work here. Looking at these example communications, many of them are hardly "obvious, vague, or highly likely/common". For instance, "He had bought new shoes that he didn't have time to wear". This statement is not obvious, not vague, and not highly likely. How likely is that to apply to just any person? Not very. Another: "He had difficulty with his fingers, like arthrosis". What is the probability of that in the population? I don't know, but it isn't high. Another: "He says he didn't have time to arrange some papers or documents". How likely is that statement to apply to just any person? Another: "It makes me feel like a light colored animal of small to medium size, bonded to her or to the applicant". The person had a small light colored pet dog or cat. How likely would this statement apply to just any person?
If in a phone session with no cold reading allowed and no preparation a medium made a lot of true statements about me or a deceased family member, a reasonable conclusion would be that the medium was genuine. Even if many of the individual statements had some modicum of probability, it's less than 1 and it's the cumulative multiplicative improbability that matters.
"Interact" means communications where the discarnate is actively responding to the medium. "No interact" means passive observations by the medium.
(2023-06-30, 08:06 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]Before my grandmother had a stroke, she would interact with people and remember it. After her stroke, she would interact with people, and not remember it happened. If the mind is dependent on the brain, this is easy to explain. If the mind is not dependent on the brain, can you explain why this happens?
Maybe the mind is dependent on the brain as long as it is locked into a physical body but there is also the possibility of unlocking it such as in NDEs and OOBEs? Even if it is the case, it is no proof of survival. For all we know, the "soul," if it exists, might be a residual phenomenon that fades in time.
(2023-07-01, 08:17 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]Small observed effect? What about this follow-on study of mediumship accuracy from 2022, which employed 28 mediums, also with a triple-blind protocol:
Is There Someone in the Hereafter? Mediumship Accuracy of 100 Readings Obtained with a Triple Level of Blinding Protocol
Patrizio Tressoldi, Laura Liberale, and Fernando Sinesio
http://www.patriziotressoldi.it/cmssimpl...ter_22.pdf
Note: the calculated cumulative p value was 0.000048.
The more I think about this, the more I think this is fraud.
Think about what is claimed: that these mediums are told that someone wants to hear from a deceased person named Anthony (or whatever the name is) and the medium then somehow contacts this particular Anthony's spirit to draw enough information such that the person requesting the reading can recognize this compared to another reading supposedly written for the ancestor named Marco. Even if the spirit of this Anthony, and many other Anthonys, are out there, how would the medium possibly pull the information from the correct Anthony?
I find it far more likely that what we are dealing with is fraud.
Mediums have long relied on fraud. See
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediumship.
What is even being claimed in this study? I don't even see where it mentions a technique, or suggests studying the best technique for contacting the dead. Rather, there is just the claim that these mediums somehow have this ability. Even if this study proved these mediums had this ability, it does nothing to say what one needs to do to contact the dead.
(2023-07-01, 02:16 AM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]This hypothesis is based on the filter/transceiver theory and would partially agree with the materialists: the mind does in fact depend on the physical brain as much human experience seems to indicate - but in this hypothesis that dependence is temporary, only during physical life when the spirit is inhabiting the body and manifesting in the physical mainly via complexly interpenetrating the brain's neuronal structures. During episodes of terminal (and probably paradoxical) lucidity the spirit has become partly decoupled from the damaged physical brain and is able to temporarily experience a more normal consciousness including access to memories, but still has enough connections to other brain functions to communicate vocally.
Cases of near normal mental functioning despite loss of most of the cerebral cortex due to severe hydrocephalus could also be explained by this hypothesis - it is functionally similar to terminal lucidity in that the mind appears to be fully functioning despite loss of or damage to much of the brain.
This hypothesis accepts that there is a dependence of the mind on the physical brain, but postulates that this dependence is strictly only during physical life.
And so, somehow, grandma's spirit was communicating with me, but somehow grandma's spirit was no longer able to remember when it did things like talk to me? If grandma's spirit was so intertwined with her brain that her spirit was not even able to remember what her own spirit did, how is that different from saying that the mind is dependent on the brain?
If a different part of grandma's brain had been damaged, her "spirit" would have lost the ability to assign meaning to words, or use grammar, or maintain the same personality, or remember past events, or feel certain emotions, or even be conscious. All of this could be predicted by knowing the part of the brain that was damaged. And yet somehow we are to believe that, if the entire brain is damaged at death, somehow the deceased would pull together memory, personality, and mental abilities from somewhere and put it all back together. And this non-entangled spirit would still be grandma.
If you want to believe it, fine, but I find that no more likely than the claim that the Heaven's Gate cult members, by committing suicide, went to join up with a spacecraft that was coming to them with the comet Hale-Bopp. Is it possible there really was a spacecraft waiting for them? Not likely. If one wants to believe such things without good evidence, one can. But I find it completely unlikely.
(2023-07-02, 02:40 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]Mediums have long relied on fraud. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediumship.
I think you will find that quoting Wiki here doesn't go a long way to making your point. Wiki has long been taken over by a group that proudly identify as "guerrilla skeptics" and are therefore heavily biased. However, your point is absolutely right. There is absolutely no good evidence in favour of spirit mediumship.
(2023-07-02, 03:05 PM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]I think you will find that quoting Wiki here doesn't go a long way to making your point. Wiki has long been taken over by a group that proudly identify as "guerrilla skeptics" and are therefore heavily biased. However, your point is absolutely right. There is absolutely no good evidence in favour of spirit mediumship.
Understood. But Wikipedia is also a huge collection of links to scientific studies on what seems like a limitless number of subjects. If anybody is interested in learning about fraudulent claims of mediumship, that one links leads to dozens of studies that deal with this subject. It is a good place to start.
(2023-07-02, 03:23 PM)Merle Wrote: [ -> ]Understood. But Wikipedia is also a huge collection of links to scientific studies on what seems like a limitless number of subjects. If anybody is interested in learning about fraudulent claims of mediumship, that one links leads to dozens of studies that deal with this subject. It is a good place to start.
You can go on any street corner and find a fraudulent psychic so what! I would love to seee you go to the windberidge institue and critique their studies
I'd like to see posters make in-depth critiques of the Windbridge studies rather than vague, general dismissing statements like "there's no good evidence for mediumship". I don't see any value in that kind of post. But if that's your thing, go for it! (as shallow as it is)
In any event, here's a recent podcast interview with Beischel if anyone's interested.
