Ted Serios

I'm willing to stop but are there any sources that will be accepted by the proponents here that are not biased in their favour?

How about referring directly to the original sources?

How about referring directly to the original sources?

If I can find the original sources but that is often difficult.  Also the original sources are often biased because the paranormal sells really well or because those involved have an automatic tendency to interpret evidence a particular way.  Oh for a neutral psi investigator!   If we could weed out the junk we might be able to seriously and intelligently discuss the gold but telling them apart.....well you know the story.

How about referring directly to the original sources?

I should add that I'm not really a 'proponent' as such. In very many topics I am neutral and find the discussions interesting, especially when evidence is evaluated. For example I recently discussed some photographic evidence. But that doesn't mean I am a proponent of either that topic in general, or of that specific case. I'm usually a bystander in most discussions, with no axe to grind on the subject itself. I am however concerned that evidence is assessed on its own merits, and not on the basis on either my own or anyone else's prior opinions.

I should add that I'm not really a 'proponent' as such. In very many topics I am neutral and find the discussions interesting, especially when evidence is evaluated. For example I recently discussed some photographic evidence. But that doesn't mean I am a proponent of either that topic in general, or of that specific case. I'm usually a bystander in most discussions, with no axe to grind on the subject itself. I am however concerned that evidence is assessed on its own merits, and not on the basis on either my own or anyone else's prior opinions.

I introduced myself on Skeptiko as a sceptical proponent because that is generally where I find myself but like you, it depends very much on the individual subject being discussed.  With some of the subjects here I have found myself siding with the sceptics more often than not but it's been getting a bit tense and I'm seeing a side to myself that I really don't care for so I'll probably soon relegate myself to the philosophy section and mellow out a little.

I'm willing to stop but are there any sources that will be accepted by the proponents here that are not biased in their favour?

This is a very important paper that should be taken seriously by both proponents and skeptics:

W. A. H. Rushton. (1968). Serios Photos: If Contrary to Natural Law, Which Law? Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 44: 289-293.

I will try and upload it online so we can all discuss it.

I consider myself a proponent. But I'm not interested in seeing any person, place or thing banned.
If rational wiki can come up with a lucid and compelling refutation, I'm all ears . Otherwise it seems(in my experience) fairly effortless to dismiss their nonsense.

I haven't. Would it be worth my time? or am I better off looking elsewhere for useful info?

You would be reading a pastiche of New Age -No, more "out there" than just New Age...- arguments peppered with references that are *way* more conservative when discussing anything resembling the point that Deepak wants to make. But, just as our bard says of RW, I suppose that he isn't "lying" per se... Just extrapolating to a wild extent and omitting the other side.

However, I must make an exception for some of the papers where he appears as a "co-author"... Those that are mostly written by the other party (his "Quantum (Orch-OR) soul" paper with Hammeroff, for example, was quite tame).

[Laird]

Ted Serios: The Mind’s Eye, by Lucy Kingett (ed.)
Tom Ruffles
25 June, 2026
The Joy of Mere Words

Clément Chéroux recounts the well-known story of Surrealist leader André Breton, Roger Caillois, and the jumping bean (p. 185). In a Paris café in 1934, someone produced one, which obligingly began jumping around. This caused a debate, with Caillois wishing to dissect it while Breton was determined to preserve the mystery. The two were irreconcilable, and Caillois left the surrealist group. Chéroux sides with Breton’s approach to the unexplained with regard to Serios’s productions. But he is a historian of photography, and as such has valuable points to make, not a psychical researcher, and while sharing his wonder at the enigma of thoughtography, I side with Caillois. To extend knowledge, unweave the rainbow – to know what causes the bean to jump – is not to destroy the mystery but to transform it. We may not get to the bottom of thoughtography, but we should always be ready with the scalpel.

The book and the accompanying exhibition are a welcome reminder of Serios’s remarkable achievement, but there is a danger they will help consign thoughtographs to the gallery as aesthetic objects, whereas for the psychical researcher the focus is on their production and what, if anything, they say about the psychokinetic power of the human mind. As a man, Serios seems to have had few redeeming features, but he left a rich legacy which continues to fascinate. So, while this book is a worthy addition to the study of Serios, thoughtography and the social environment of his time, there is much still to be said about his cryptic productions.