From Skeptic to Believer: News Anchor Gets a First Time Reading from a Medium

Yes a person could say all those things but they need to support it with evidence.

With the independent direct voice - to suggest telepathy requires the construction of a complete personality not just information. It would be like suggesting, in the best cases, a person you had never met called you on the telephone and held a conversation with you so accurate in terms of personality, content and style as to convince you they were someone you knew and loved. One could 'say' telepathy but that would, imho, simply be using the word almost as some sort of magic charm. How on earth would that work? It doesn't make any sense (to me anyway).

To adopt that position with full materialisation would be similar to the independent direct voice but even more illogical as far as I can see. I may be wrong but I cannot recall reading even the most ardent skeptic suggesting that mediums could, using telepathy as an information source, construct a full human body (by some fraudulent means), which could move, speak and interact with the sitters,  be recognised by loved ones and facilitate this encounter by telepathy. Is it conceivable - well yes, I just conceived of it. Is it likely? Personally I can't see how but then again I have read scores of reports of people's experiences with the phenomena and it doesn't fit.  (* see point below)

Similar for trance in the conditions I mentioned. Telepathy cannot as far as I can see be used to explain the nature of the communication. Fraud is usually the explanation of choice for such people. In fact, I can't think of many skeptics who would accept telepathy as a fact, let alone be used to describe the phenomena I have mentioned.

Then there are the encounters with dead people that are not facilitated by mediums. That must be imagination or hallucination or simply lying. See it's easy to conjure up explanations that are superficially attractive but don't  bear the weight of the experience for the person who has observed it when the full facts are examined. 

In short, telepathy isn't a sensible response to such phenomena but short of the person experiencing it for themselves I can't think of a way to budge someone who insists it's all smoke, mirrors and the effect of something else (telepathy) that most skeptics probably don't accept exists, and those that do have never seriously suggested that it can be wielded in such a way.

* This also reminded me of the Super Psi explanation which you mentioned,  which appears to be something that can be used to perform any of phenomena that may be demonstrated by mediums. Depending on your point of view it's a way to explain psi phenomena without the need for survival of death or a dualistic model. Is it convincing or just a desperate attempt to avoid the unacceptable alternative? I've never seen anyone demonstrate that kind of thing is even remotely possible with 'Super Psi'. Chris Carter I think disposes of it pretty well in one of his interesting books. It could be aliens using invisibility cloaks of course.

Imho there's no point in arguing with people who dogmatically assert their position when it doesn't fit the reported fact or what has been shown to be possible with telepathy. The difficulty is that unless we have experienced it ourselves, or can show them, they have a position which it is difficult to falsify. In any even what would be the point? What would one be trying to achieve?

You're right it is a stalemate. The answer is, I think, to form a personal view of the evidence and test the strength of skeptical arguments against that view, being prepared always to revise our view if the argument is strong enough. Sceptical arguments can be a good way to increase one's knowledge and refine our opinion but without incontrovertible evidence people can always find a way to stick with their original thinking if they want to. After all, the certainty of knowing we are right is very powerful and comfortable isn't it?

Just for the record, just yesterday I got a response that mentioned in addition to telepathy, QM and super psi as possible answers to how this works. 

Problem is: I can't quite explain exactly how my explanation works either (other than in very sweeping terms) so, we seem to be on equal ground in our need to point to something we can't explain. 

Drat! There's that pesky Aristotelian logic trapping me in a corner me again!

Some days I don't know why I bother with a forum like this,,,  

but occasionally I think I get through to some person or other and it makes it worth while.

@jkmac - you made me laugh, thank you.

I think I do understand where you're coming from. It is very frustrating sometimes, particularly so when one looks at the range and type of evidence available. To form an informed view at to what is happening requires the commitment of a lot of time and an open mind, not to mention being comfortable with uncertainty. I used to try to counter what I see as daft suggestions, now I don't bother but I am always happy to chat to someone with a genuine interest and an open mind on the subject.

One difficulty is perhaps that you're trying to explain phenomena which you can't demonstrate to the person and probably haven't witnessed yourself. In my mind this reduces to a probability exercise and a subjective one at that. The only way forward I can think of, if you're determined to press the point, is to select one or two good accounts and dissect them with the other party. What you'll be left with is your personal view as to what really happened and how, without any way to categorically prove it one way or the other. I'd say discuss it but trust your own judgement, be prepared to refine and revise your understanding and don't waste your energy on people who won't engage or try to find common ground.

I don't think you're necessarily on equal ground though. The reason I say that is that even a relatively cursory review of the best cases, with an open mind, makes the telepathy hypothesis appear ridiculous and needlessly overcomplicated. Of course it has to be because the proponent of that position KNOWS that the dualistic/survival model is wrong - so that can't the the explanation. IMHO. On the other hand there is a tacit willingness to accept telepathy which I suppose would be a step forward if they really believed it was possible. I mean that in the sense that all communication is from mind to mind, the debate is over the method of communication and whose minds are involved. Even in the cases I mentioned, e.g. Independent Direct Voice, the communicator can be affected by the minds of other sitters apparently. It isn't an easy subject to form a quick view on which will also fit all the evidence.

As an aside, what are you trying to achieve by that kind of discussion?

@jkmac - you made me laugh, thank you.

I think I do understand where you're coming from. It is very frustrating sometimes, particularly so when one looks at the range and type  of evidence available.  To form an informed view at to what is happening requires the commitment of a lot of time and an open mind, not to mention being comfortable with uncertainty. I used to try to counter what I see as daft suggestions, now I don't bother but I am always happy to chat to someone with a genuine interest and an open mind on the subject.

One difficulty is perhaps that you're trying to explain phenomena which you can't demonstrate to the person and probably haven't witnessed yourself. In my mind this reduces to a probability exercise and a subjective one at that. The only way forward I can think of, if you're determined to press the point, is to select one or two good accounts and dissect them with the other party. What you'll be left with is your personal view as to what really happened and how, without any way to categorically prove it one way or the other. I'd say discuss it but trust your own judgement, be prepared to refine and revise your understanding and don't waste your energy on people who won't engage or try to find common ground.

I don't think you're necessarily on equal ground though. The reason I say that is that even a relatively cursory review of the best cases, with an open mind, makes the telepathy hypothesis appear ridiculous and needlessly overcomplicated. Of course it has to be because the proponent of that position KNOWS that the dualistic/survival model is wrong - so that can't the the explanation. IMHO. On the other hand there is a tacit willingness to accept telepathy which I suppose would be a step forward if they really believed it was possible. I mean that in the sense that all communication is from mind to mind, the debate is over the method of communication and whose minds are involved. Even in the cases I mentioned, e.g. Independent Direct Voice, the communicator can be affected by the minds of other sitters apparently. It isn't an easy subject to form a quick view on which will also fit all the evidence.

As an aside, what are you trying to achieve by that kind of discussion?

Glad you had a laugh!

Not sure to which discussion you refer when you say "that kind". 

But I participate here when I think I have a personal understanding of the topic, and can add some insight or amplify someone's comments or counter something that I think is either flat out wrong, or is flawed logically. 

In addition to lots and lots of research in the multitude of phenomenon relating to the non-physical aspect of our reality, I have more than a little a bit of personal experience with it too, so I feel I can bring a bit of that to the discussion as well.

What am I trying to achieve? Hmmm. Good question. 

Let's try this- what I am trying to achieve in general is:
- through discussion, validate and/or modify my theories of how this all (what I call the non-physical) works
- act as a counter to what I feel is clearly mis-information, so that others who may not know better can make a fair assessment of things
- present information to searchers who are looking for it and are trying to reach some conclusions
- Find mentors in those who are "ahead" of me, and perhaps be a mentor to those that are "behind" 

I think that covers it completely. 

Thanks for prompting me to bring some personal clarity to what the hell I'm doing here... 

Glad you had a laugh!

Not sure to which discussion you refer when you say "that kind". 

But I participate here when I think I have a personal understanding of the topic, and can add some insight or amplify someone's comments or counter something that I think is either flat out wrong, or is flawed logically. 

In addition to lots and lots of research in the multitude of phenomenon relating to the non-physical aspect of our reality, I have more than a little a bit of personal experience with it too, so I feel I can bring a bit of that to the discussion as well.

What am I trying to achieve? Hmmm. Good question. 

Let's try this- what I am trying to achieve in general is:
- through discussion, validate and/or modify my theories of how this all (what I call the non-physical) works
- act as a counter to what I feel is clearly mis-information, so that others who may not know better can make a fair assessment of things
- present information to searchers who are looking for it and are trying to reach some conclusions
- Find mentors in those who are "ahead" of me, and perhaps be a mentor to those that are "behind" 

I think that covers it completely. 

Thanks for prompting me to bring some personal clarity to what the hell I'm doing here... 

That sounds like a very balanced set of objectives to me

What is the nature of your personal research and experiences if you don't mind me asking?

That sounds like a very balanced set of objectives to me

What is the nature of your personal research and experiences if you don't mind me asking?

Probably easiest to just list them-

Trained and retired elec. engineer
Life long left brainer. Open minded skeptic. Wasn't aware until about 8 years ago that there was good evidence for any of this stuff.
Extensive psi and science reading list (350 books or so), dozens of topics, mostly "spiritual", incl several channeled books
dream journalling
lucid dreaming
Invented lucid dream initiation device, then bought and used a better one 
multiple past life regressions
float tank experiences
sweat lodges
mediation training
Research and some exp with plant hallucinogens (not Ayasuasca yet)
Shamanic training
Reiki experiences
OBE training at Monroe Institute

Thank you.

Probably easiest to just list them-

Trained and retired elec. engineer
Life long left brainer. Open minded skeptic. Wasn't aware until about 8 years ago that there was good evidence for any of this stuff.
Extensive psi and science reading list (350 books or so), dozens of topics, mostly "spiritual", incl several channeled books
dream journalling
lucid dreaming
Invented lucid dream initiation device, then bought and used a better one 
multiple past life regressions
float tank experiences
sweat lodges
mediation training
Research and some exp with plant hallucinogens (not Ayasuasca yet)
Shamanic training
Reiki experiences
OBE training at Monroe Institute

Which lucid dream device did you buy? What do you think?
Any candid thoughts on the Monroe Institute?

Which lucid dream device did you buy? What do you think?
Any candid thoughts on the Monroe Institute?

Started by designing one from a Arduino and a pair of reading glasses. Worked but lots of cables.

Then I Bought a Rem-Dreamer
Very good. Lots of features I like. Problem I had was similar to with my home-brew,, had a hard time getting settings tweaked to be dim enough not to shock me awake, but bright enough to be noticeable. I also found myself very aware of what I was trying to do, and this affected my ability to get to sleep at all. In the end I just decided to stick with my more nature way to doing LD.

I was glad I bought it and glad it's still in my drawer in case I want to play with it. I think it was $225 or so. Came from UK I think.

Re: Monroe Institute. I LOVED it. First of all it gave me the chance to hang with like minded folks for a week and that was worth a lot. 
The "Gateway" process progressed a little slower than I liked, to the point where they spent a lot of time reminding us that the objective was to learn about ourselves and not specifically the OBE. That sort of annoyed me cause that was the whole purpose I went. But the Gateway Experience is a prerequisite for most of the other classes so I just shut up and did it. We did get into OBE stuff though so no biggie.  

I developed some good techniques and had a couple experiences but never got full blown OBE unfortunately.

I bought a set of the CDs but never practiced much at home cause was doing many other practices at the same time.. Yes, a bit ADD of me I know. Pretty sure when I get a chance to spend some more time practicing I'll have the experience I want.

I did have a crazy experience at home before i went to Monroe with it where I saw a test pattern like shape and was hearing loud buzzing that I thought was my CD player. Turns out I was having the standard pre-OBE experience. Wish I didn't just take off the head phones and start trying to figure out what was wrong with them... : (

Bottom line- I recommend highly.

Started by designing one from a Arduino and a pair of reading glasses. Worked but lots of cables.

Then I Bought a Rem-Dreamer
Very good. Lots of features I like. Problem I had was similar to with my home-brew,, had a hard time getting settings tweaked to be dim enough not to shock me awake, but bright enough to be noticeable. I also found myself very aware of what I was trying to do, and this affected my ability to get to sleep at all. In the end I just decided to stick with my more nature way to doing LD.

I was glad I bought it and glad it's still in my drawer in case I want to play with it. I think it was $225 or so. Came from UK I think.

Re: Monroe Institute. I LOVED it. First of all it gave me the chance to hang with like minded folks for a week and that was worth a lot. 
The "Gateway" process progressed a little slower than I liked, to the point where they spent a lot of time reminding us that the objective was to learn about ourselves and not specifically the OBE. That sort of annoyed me cause that was the whole purpose I went. But the Gateway Experience is a prerequisite for most of the other classes so I just shut up and did it. We did get into OBE stuff though so no biggie.  

I developed some good techniques and had a couple experiences but never got full blown OBE unfortunately.

I bought a set of the CDs but never practiced much at home cause was doing many other practices at the same time.. Yes, a bit ADD of me I know. Pretty sure when I get a chance to spend some more time practicing I'll have the experience I want.

I did have a crazy experience at home before i went to Monroe with it where I saw a test pattern like shape and was hearing loud buzzing that I thought was my CD player. Turns out I was having the standard pre-OBE experience. Wish I didn't just take off the head phones and start trying to figure out what was wrong with them... : (

Bottom line- I recommend highly.

Good stuff. Was tempted to talk more about OBE here, but maybe I will see if there is a technique thread and start one if not.

I started this thread for anyone that is interested in talking specifically about OBE techniques.

http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-231.html

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?

Empathy. You cannot be (know, understand, interpret) what you are not the vibration of...first.

Next question.