Leslie Kean's new Netflix documentary

Scepticism is prudent IMO. I don’t think anyone suggests it’s common or easy to demonstrate. In terms of “what we have” there is plenty of evidence of its existence from people who’ve studied the subject. Some of them highly qualified scientifically or of other notable standing. 

If you mean “demonstrated on BBC science programmes” I’d agree but to suggest there’s not “something” in terms of evidence for it is not accurate as far as I can see.

I do think that given the boggle-threshold challenging nature of it, and the implications for our view of the way the world works, it needs to be seen to be truly believed.

Well I'm plenty up for normal mediumship. Maybe even ghosts as a kind of shared mental vision, but physical ghosts weird me out a bit too much. Maybe because there needs to be a mechanism, it's hard to imagine what method they'd appear by. As soon as something pops up it enters a physical domain and as skeptical I am of a Brian Cox type claim, we've got a pretty decent idea of how physics and particles work and it's hard to fit ghosts and ghost juice into it. 

But then that's just me, maybe I'm in a materialistic mood because of some things I read today.

The physical mediumship supposedly on display in the documentary just wasn't impressive or even convincing IMO. 

Honestly what baffles me are some negative reviews on IMDB complaining that there were too many unanswered questions about how NDEs, spirits, reincarnation and the afterlife work: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13649692/re...1&rtm_sr=1

This latest 1 star review just made me want to scream, though I am starting to think this is yet another troll review. At least a third of those questions aren't even relevant and surely can't be serious, right?

To me, it is just silly to demand so much from two episodes, because of course we don't have all the answers, and not every single skeptical point could be addressed in an episode that's only an hour long. That wouldn't make for an interesting watch. Most of that reviewers points have either been addressed by Fenwick and Greyson already, or some other researcher. Just do the research! It isn't that hard!

I mean, why on earth would the documentary talk about the 'evolution' and workings of consciousness in such detail when we don't even know? Why would it be expected to give full explanations of how exactly the afterlife and spirits and reincarnation work when we still can't confirm anything absolute about it? 

Oh, and the heartless bashing of people who do believe pretty much confirms the intellectual laziness and ignorance of these militant atheist critics. The documentary never claims to give all the answers, because we don't have them. It even states that we have no definitive proof. So why would you ever think that asking questions about how these things precisely work would somehow undermine their validity?

The physical mediumship supposedly on display in the documentary just wasn't impressive or even convincing IMO. 

Honestly what baffles me are some negative reviews on IMDB complaining that there were too many unanswered questions about how NDEs, spirits, reincarnation and the afterlife work: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13649692/re...1&rtm_sr=1

This latest 1 star review just made me want to scream, though I am starting to think this is yet another troll review. At least a third of those questions aren't even relevant and surely can't be serious, right?

To me, it is just silly to demand so much from two episodes, because of course we don't have all the answers, and not every single skeptical point could be addressed in an episode that's only an hour long. That wouldn't make for an interesting watch. Most of that reviewers points have either been addressed by Fenwick and Greyson already, or some other researcher. Just do the research! It isn't that hard!

I mean, why on earth would the documentary talk about the 'evolution' and workings of consciousness in such detail when we don't even know? Why would it be expected to give full explanations of how exactly the afterlife and spirits and reincarnation work when we still can't confirm anything absolute about it? 

Oh, and the heartless bashing of people who do believe pretty much confirms the intellectual laziness and ignorance of these militant atheist critics. The documentary never claims to give all the answers, because we don't have them. It even states that we have no definitive proof. So why would you ever think that asking questions about how these things precisely work would somehow undermine their validity?

They're not all negative reviews, though, are they, Omni. Just had a quick look.

Well I'm plenty up for normal mediumship. Maybe even ghosts as a kind of shared mental vision, but physical ghosts weird me out a bit too much. Maybe because there needs to be a mechanism, it's hard to imagine what method they'd appear by. As soon as something pops up it enters a physical domain and as skeptical I am of a Brian Cox type claim, we've got a pretty decent idea of how physics and particles work and it's hard to fit ghosts and ghost juice into it. 

But then that's just me, maybe I'm in a materialistic mood because of some things I read today.

Have you read any books explaining how it is purported to work? There’s quite a lot written on the subject (a lot of it impenetrable granted). Could it be that we don’t know everything about how physics works outside a physical domain? Could it really be that we don’t know everything? 

Just because I don’t  understand the mechanism doesn’t seem a reasonable basis for rejecting as false the evidential testimony of people who claim to have witnesses something directly. Particularly if that evidence is a) corroborated, b) observed in a controlled environment and c) from people who are unlikely to be fooled by sleight of hand. 

Personally, I’d need to see it for myself but I wouldn’t reject the testimony of good witnesses (I wouldn’t accept it as proof positive either).

The physical mediumship supposedly on display in the documentary just wasn't impressive or even convincing IMO. 

I didn’t think the mental mediumship was at all impressive either tbh.

Have you read any books explaining how it is purported to work? There’s quite a lot written on the subject (a lot of it impenetrable granted). Could it be that we don’t know everything about how physics works outside a physical domain? Could it really be that we don’t know everything?

It's currently open to debate whether there are particles in actuality, and whether - if they exist - their movements are fundamentally unpredictable. Physics is also completely compatible with Idealism, if not actually suggesting it via experimental evidence.

All to say it's very odd for anyone to appeal to physics as reason physical mediumship cannot happen. Especially if mediums do seem to experience changes in their physical brains when channeling the dead [which means mental mediumship impinges on the "physical" as well]. I think this has been shown but I cannot quite recall if anyone besides Dr. Oz did this testing...

I suppose it could be part of the mediums own beliefs, which seems to be what Sci's quotes are alluding to

I have to admit I kind of dislike the theory I proposed, even though I think it at least offers some way of understanding the situation.

"Belief makes reality" is such a flawed idea IMO, because there are so many exceptions to the rule across history. So many magic rituals failed to stop bullets and blades after all.

I prefer to think there's something to the production of a "negative Psi" effect that can be reversed by shifting our expectations. So this natural Psi ability has efficacy in these "fragile" situations where one is trying to do something like produce ectoplasm but is not actual support for the idea that "thoughts become things" via stuff that is likely (almost?) complete bull crap like the Secret.

I didn’t think the mental mediumship was at all impressive either tbh.

I think even people who want the afterlife to be real don't want mediumship to be so you'll see a kind of prejudiced presentation.

I recall reviews of a compilation of afterlife descriptions drawn from mediumship and you could see some people hated the idea that they might have to get jobs beyond the grave and deal with other mundane aspects.

And if the fundamental reality is so different from the machinery of physics, where instead of a clean lab producing replicable phenomena you have to get the setting/lightning just right to "pierce the Veil"...it makes things quite Absurd...

Of course some of us think the world (and "Hell", "Heaven", etc) is already like that.

Have you read any books explaining how it is purported to work? There’s quite a lot written on the subject (a lot of it impenetrable granted). Could it be that we don’t know everything about how physics works outside a physical domain? Could it really be that we don’t know everything? 

Just because I don’t  understand the mechanism doesn’t seem a reasonable basis for rejecting as false the evidential testimony of people who claim to have witnesses something directly. Particularly if that evidence is a) corroborated, b) observed in a controlled environment and c) from people who are unlikely to be fooled by sleight of hand. 

Personally, I’d need to see it for myself but I wouldn’t reject the testimony of good witnesses (I wouldn’t accept it as proof positive either).

Thats the thing though ain't it. We are unfortunately on the back end in our interests, cause there's a hell of a lot of science that just annihilates different ways that souls, PSI or immaterial things that act with the material exist. At the very least we have evidence, and as long as we keep getting it we know we can't be dismissed outright and there's something going on.

Though, sometimes I do feel like we're a bit stuck in the immaterialism of the gaps struggle, since we can't exactly get anywhere if that's really the case, and materialism may have big hurdles to cross to solve these issues, but it is pretty successful.

I have to admit I kind of dislike the theory I proposed, even though I think it at least offers some way of understanding the situation.

"Belief makes reality" is such a flawed idea IMO, because there are so many exceptions to the rule across history. So many magic rituals failed to stop bullets and blades after all.

I prefer to think there's something to the production of a "negative Psi" effect that can be reversed by shifting our expectations. So this natural Psi ability has efficacy in these "fragile" situations where one is trying to do something like produce ectoplasm but is not actual support for the idea that "thoughts become things" via stuff that is likely (almost?) complete bull crap like the Secret.

I'm a little more amenable to the belief creates reality idea although I agree that The Secret was a load of shit and I remain dubious about physical mediumship.

I think that imagining that you are going to walk away from a fall from the top of a skyscraper is never going to become reality or that chanting can stop bullets, for that matter. We live in a physical world and there is a reason for the way that world is structured. But I am of the view that the world is created from ideas in the larger sense and that our own ideas contribute to that manifestation. But it is so structured that it would take a phenomenal amount of mental discipline to focus ones beliefs enough to affect even a small part of the consensus reality. I'm open to the stories of various yogis being able to stop their hearts and survive, or levitate or perhaps appear elsewhere on the planet (all of which have been reported) but I don't think for a minute that I can tell myself there will be a winning lottery ticket waiting for me at my local shop and, lo and behold, I'm rich.