Claire Broad, Psychic Mediumship and Science |427|

#21
It might be very interesting to find a collection of scientific problems that could relatively easily be solved unambiguously, but have not been. These could be tested on psychics and then solved conventionally. For example:

The detailed layout of the atoms within molecules of certain suitably obscure organic compounds inside crystalline samples. (Solvable by X-ray crystallography).

The 3-dimensional folding pattern of a protein not previously analysed.

Location (chromosome number and position on that chromosome) of defects in the genome that cause a specific disease.

etc

David
I vaguely remember someone making a game out of solving protein folding problems...
 
#22
It might be very interesting to find a collection of scientific problems that could relatively easily be solved unambiguously, but have not been. These could be tested on psychics and then solved conventionally. For example:

The detailed layout of the atoms within molecules of certain suitably obscure organic compounds inside crystalline samples. (Solvable by X-ray crystallography).

The 3-dimensional folding pattern of a protein not previously analysed.

Location (chromosome number and position on that chromosome) of defects in the genome that cause a specific disease.

etc

David
I would have asked the worlds greatest remote viewing team (farsight) to do that, but they won't. Maybe they cannot. How can you ask the right question unless you know the problem well? So you need feedback and remote viewing probably isn't the right technique for that kind of data.

Why not just ask for a treasure greater than 1 million dollars within x miles from the shore? Etc.
 
#23
I wish I could have the experiences of the guest and the confidence alex has today about nde's, mediumship, even parapsychology.



We don't need better evidence? It's satisfactorily proven? So people don't come to your way of seeing things because of religion, or scientific materialism, or what? Have you run out of questions to ask. I am a bit worried.
Well once you have experiences it's actually gets pretty mundane because its usually so random and you can't figure out what exactly triggers it. My mind actually tries and finds ways to make it seem like it didn't happen
 
#25
Not exactly what you are referring to but might be of interest ....

http://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/9/jse_09_4_phillips.pdf

Extrasensory Perception of Subatomic Particles​
I. Historical Evidence​
STEPHEN M. PHILLIPS​
Abstract - A century-old claim by two early leaders of the Theosophical Society to have used a form of ESP to observe subatomic particles is evaluated. Their observations are found to be consistent with facts of nuclear physics and with the quark model of particle physics provided that their assumption that they saw atoms is rejected. Their account of the force binding together the fundamental constituents of matter is shown to agree with the string model. Their description of these basic particles bears striking similarity to basic ideas of superstring theory. The implication of this remarkable correlation between ostensible paranormal observations of subatomic particles and facts of nuclear and particle physics is that quarks are neither fundamental nor hadronic states of superstrings, as many physicists currently assume, but, instead, are composed of three subquark states of a superstring.​
Wasn't the concept of the Benzene ring something that appeared to a man in a dream?
 
#26
Wasn't the concept of the Benzene ring something that appeared to a man in a dream?
Yes, Kekulé, but since he was a chemist, his mind was steeped in the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Kekulé#Kekulé's_dream

IMHO it was insightful, but not that great a leap. In those days people used the simple concept of valency - akin to some click together building toy - so that everything had to join up with no bonds left hanging. That immediately means they the hydrogens can only be bonded once - to a carbon, so you can reduce the problem to just the carbon atoms.

Interestingly there is at least one other possible structure which actualy exists, but is far less stable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prismane

I suppose that I wanted my list to be more problems in which chemical insight doesn't really help - you have to do the experiments or use psychic means.

David
 
#27
Yes, Kekulé, but since he was a chemist, his mind was steeped in the problem.
I'm not sure (the word 'but' casts doubt in my mind) whether you regard his mind being steeped in the problem as a positive or negative thing. To me it is an essential requirement. I often get answers to matters which are troubling me, whether they may be related to my work, or maybe involving personal relationships, through my dreams. "Sleeping on a problem" to me is a standard technique to help clear a path through a muddle. Sometimes it may come explicitly in a dream. Other times, just as I'm waking up thoughts are in my mind regarding whatever had been troubling me the night before, and there is guidance there.

Certainly I wouldn't expect to receive answers or guidance on matters which were of no particular concern or relevance to me. So 'having my mind steeped in the problem' is to me an essential requirement.
 
#29
I have always assumed that schizophrenia must be related to inherent ψ abilities in some way.

I feel that also. I am a little older than you - 70 on Saturday. I attribute it to a Skeptiko effect - making me aware of just how likely it is that life goes on after death.

Well ..... I'd still not wish to descend into madness, though some psychic experiences would be interesting!

David
wow a big happy birthday to you David:

1568903950856.png

what are yr plans for 70s? have you ever had a reading with a medium?
 
#30
I wish I could have the experiences of the guest and the confidence alex has today about nde's, mediumship, even parapsychology.



We don't need better evidence? It's satisfactorily proven? So people don't come to your way of seeing things because of religion, or scientific materialism, or what? Have you run out of questions to ask. I am a bit worried.
I think by now the boot should be on the other foot. Instead of orthodox science endlessly requiring more proof, they should try to explain how their scheme of things can explain a whole range of phenomena that we discuss here.

Claire gives lots of examples in her book, and she may have quoted this in the podcast, I don't know. She describes how at age 4 - totally unaware of the concept of death, she went to the cemetery with her family to visit the grave of her grandfather, whom she didn't know. She wasn't interested and just started pottering around with the stones and things, when she felt enveloped by the presence of someone. This person passed on a message to his wife, which used a private name that only he used for his wife (I think most people have something like that). Obviously she was amazed because only he used that word to address her. I guess you could contrive some fairly implausible conventional explanation to 'explain' that, but it wouldn't be very convincing - however now think about the massed evidence of stories of that sort.

That is before you go through the endless tests of the Gansfelt effect, the presentiment effect, etc etc.

As you know, I don't trust institutional science any more. I think they are just stalling for time right now by asking for more and more evidence. I think a lot of chickens are coming home to roost. Their world is essentially a closed set of particles and fields, and there is no obvious way how consciousness exists in such a world, and the odds are massively against life appearing or evolving by natural selection ( see my discussion of Behe's latest book), etc etc. I suspect they know that something big is going to have to give, but they can still stuff their heads in the sand a bit longer.

If you think more evidence is needed, I have two questions:

Have you read all the evidence that has already been collected?

Precisely how much more evidence would you need to change your mind?

David
 
Last edited:
#31
If you think more evidence is needed, I have two questions:

Have you read all the evidence that has already been collected?

Precisely how much more evidence would you need to change your mind?

David
.
My issue is with the quality of the research.
I would prefer to ask how you categorize evidence. There are only a dozen or so researchers. Its an international phenomenon...i only speak english, so cannot be sure. I don't have journal access. I havent read all of the research no. But as Alex once said (paraphrasing) "it's the actual research that matters, not expert opinion".

Like, respect the research.

On that front, what kind of research already exists that offers strong evidence?

Well, if we could do the equivalent of building a bridge, then no one except deniers would disagree. The soul switch is that bridge to the afterlife. But like LENR research, I remain cautious.

It was moody who said we didn't have a science yet, just logic. So...point out that slam dunk research...

do you really believe millions of non-experiencers are deluded...all of those scientists...etc. I think its a mystery. Its not proven.
 
Last edited:
#32
I would have asked the worlds greatest remote viewing team (farsight) to do that, but they won't. Maybe they cannot. How can you ask the right question unless you know the problem well? So you need feedback and remote viewing probably isn't the right technique for that kind of data.

Why not just ask for a treasure greater than 1 million dollars within x miles from the shore? Etc.
IMO, Farsight sounds like a bunch of politically motivated frauds to me. Their predictive power is at or near 0.

I think to some extent you're asking for effects that cannot be created. A hammer pounds in nail and a screw driver twists in screws. Two different tools for two different - but similar enough to be confused - purposes.

I have a series of interviews with seasoned police detectives that called in psychics when a serious/major case went cold - someone was missing or a murder unsolved. Some of these detectives were initially extremely skeptical, but had heard through the grapevine that certain psychics were able to deliver meaningful results. In some cases the psychics were then able to, basically, find the missing person and/or solve the murder case. This by presenting detailed and often obscure facts that they could not have known by normal means. The detectives are no fools. They deal with liars all day every day, yet they make clear statements at how amazed they were by the psychics' input, knowledge of secret details, etc.

It's not like psi/mediumship don't get put to practical use all of the time; they do. It's just that they don't perform every trick that you want them to, on demand.

We don't understand the parameters of this stuff and we shouldn't judge it until we have created a better picture of what we should expect from it.
 
#33
IMO, Farsight sounds like a bunch of politically motivated frauds to me. Their predictive power is at or near 0.

I think to some extent you're asking for effects that cannot be created. A hammer pounds in nail and a screw driver twists in screws. Two different tools for two different - but similar enough to be confused - purposes.

I have a series of interviews with seasoned police detectives that called in psychics when a serious/major case went cold - someone was missing or a murder unsolved. Some of these detectives were initially extremely skeptical, but had heard through the grapevine that certain psychics were able to deliver meaningful results. In some cases the psychics were then able to, basically, find the missing person and/or solve the murder case. This by presenting detailed and often obscure facts that they could not have known by normal means. The detectives are no fools. They deal with liars all day every day, yet they make clear statements at how amazed they were by the psychics' input, knowledge of secret details, etc.

It's not like psi/mediumship don't get put to practical use all of the time; they do. It's just that they don't perform every trick that you want them to, on demand.

We don't understand the parameters of this stuff and we shouldn't judge it until we have created a better picture of what we should expect from it.
Look, what your saying about police and psychic detectives could be true, but it isn't scientific evidence. And maybe your analogy is correct about using the right tool for the job.

I consider the whole issue a communication problem. There really appears to be something there...its not all made up...but we just do not know how to ask the right questions, build the right models, test the right variables...we don't even have variables.

Like, how conscious are you right now? There are crude machines that try to guess, but how does that knowledge about consciousness and the brain relate to this other realm?


Its folly to think we know.

Farsight is isolated...that's my diagnosis. Same for 'blacklight power' and randal mills. And most of religion.
 
#35
Look, what your saying about police and psychic detectives could be true, but it isn't scientific evidence. And maybe your analogy is correct about using the right tool for the job.

I consider the whole issue a communication problem. There really appears to be something there...its not all made up...but we just do not know how to ask the right questions, build the right models, test the right variables...we don't even have variables.

Like, how conscious are you right now? There are crude machines that try to guess, but how does that knowledge about consciousness and the brain relate to this other realm?


Its folly to think we know.

Farsight is isolated...that's my diagnosis. Same for 'blacklight power' and randal mills. And most of religion.
Superqualia,
I really don't understand what you're trying to accomplish. What is the point of whatever it is you're working on?

There's a lot more to life than the intellect, my friend. It took me a long time to understand that. We'd be half baked fools without it, but we'd be half baked fools if it was all we had.

There are entirely other ways of perceiving the world(s) around us that are equally valid and that represent aspects of the totality of being. It's not fair or reasonable to "test" or "prove" one way with the tools and metrics of an entirely different way.
 
#36
My only heart felt suggestion is to find people who aren't fully convinced and ask them questions. I really liked how Julie was able to separate what she knows and what she thinks she knows. Ditto Parnia. I personally prefer Raymond's candor. Despite his self diagnosis of being on the autism spectrum, he sure does have a lot of friends.

Surely he could find a donor of some kind? OBE experiencers seem like a valid research population for studying non-local consciousness.

If you don't have a theory, than rationally all you have are guesses. Surely you are aware of that notion, even if you don't apply it.

You've got to be self aware enough to know the afterlife is not proven. Or do you believe that? And no comment on the soul phone? The only device that seems like really strong evidence of an afterlife -- though not proof at this point?
 
#37
Superqualia,
I really don't understand what you're trying to accomplish. What is the point of whatever it is you're working on?

There's a lot more to life than the intellect, my friend. It took me a long time to understand that. We'd be half baked fools without it, but we'd be half baked fools if it was all we had.

There are entirely other ways of perceiving the world(s) around us that are equally valid and that represent aspects of the totality of being. It's not fair or reasonable to "test" or "prove" one way with the tools and metrics of an entirely different way.
I like people who can think differently and pretend they are wrong. I like creativity and new ideas.

Also, this world sucks. So there is that. Nothing to accomplish...just pointing out deficiencies.
 
#38
When someone believes something for emotional (psychological) reasons rather than logical reasons, no amount of evidence will be enough to change their mind because emotions are not logical, evidence will not change how they feel.

The average person believes all sorts of things they are unable to understand the evidence for simply because "science says it's so".

The problem with evidence for the afterlife is not its quality or quantity (logic). The problem is that the mainstream scientific community does not support it (emotion).

That would change in an instant if $$$ were available to physicists, chemists, biologists to study it.

The problem is not lack of evidence, the problem is lack of $$$ (greed = emotion).
 
Last edited:
#39
.
My issue is with the quality of the research.
I would prefer to ask how you categorize evidence. There are only a dozen or so researchers. Its an international phenomenon...i only speak english, so cannot be sure. I don't have journal access. I havent read all of the research no. But as Alex once said (paraphrasing) "it's the actual research that matters, not expert opinion".

Like, respect the research.

On that front, what kind of research already exists that offers strong evidence?

Well, if we could do the equivalent of building a bridge, then no one except deniers would disagree. The soul switch is that bridge to the afterlife. But like LENR research, I remain cautious.

It was moody who said we didn't have a science yet, just logic. So...point out that slam dunk research...

do you really believe millions of non-experiencers are deluded...all of those scientists...etc. I think its a mystery. Its not proven.
So much depends on what you call 'Science'. If you look at ethnographic research, for example, there is abundant evidence for psi phenomena. But that does not satisfy the determined materialist who will argue that ethnography is not proper science and what is gathered is not proper evidence.

If you put together all the researchers you will find thousands. if you check out George Hansen's The Trickster and the Paranormal you will find Hansen referring to numerous PhDs that are largely unknown. But if by researchers you mean folk doing 'experiments' there will a lower number.

As a lifelong experiencer I get that those who have no compelling experiences are doubtful, if you can't take the word of those who have experiences.

So its not that non-experiencers are "deluded" - unless they flat out deny. There is no rational ground to deny something that you have not experienced - otherwise we'd all still be virgins. The issue with scientists who make a stand on materialism is that its not a rational position to take. You can't know that consciousness arises from the material and then adopt a dogmatic position by declaring what you think is universally applicable. That's not scientific and its scarcely rational.

If you embrace the full scope of human experience psi phenomena seem to be the norm. The fact that there is popularly thought to be no science that backs that up is unremarkable. What we call the human sciences are more complex and challenging than physical sciences - and hence tend not to be regarded as 'proper science'. Material science tends to stick to stuff that is easy to manage compared to consciousness - so while we do have psychology as a 'proper' science many aspects of human consciousness are relegated to the realm of 'art', philosophy and religion. Notice how there is no science of love?

So when you say "I think its a mystery. Its not proven." I get that this is a personal statement. For me its proven, but it still a mystery. Proof isn't about some means to explain something and categorise it. Its whether you have sufficient grounds, on your own account, to accept the reality of something. Its not whether you and 11 others agree a thing is real - so-called consensual reality can be a perilous trap and the source of tyranny, delusion and conspiracy.
 
#40
It is really instructive to look at some other areas of science, because science has acquired an infuriating habit of coming to a conclusion too early, or generalising too much, and then as contrary evidence comes in, endlessly dragging their feet asking for yet more evidence. To take just one example, we have been told for decades how harmful saturated fat is to eat. It now looks as though this advice was wrong, and that because people displaced SFs from their diet by eating foods containing sugar, this advice did a lot of harm.

As of now, you will find a variety of advice from official experts, some trying to keep hold of the traditional viewpoint, some tentatively embracing a change. Further out there are a range of clearly highly informed people - some doing research - taking a more definite position.

This peculiar phenomenon seems to happen over and over. Another good example is the whole issue of intelligent design, that I have discussed elsewhere. Some conventional scientists clearly know evolution by natural selection is untenable but like to claim there is a "Middle Way". It is never completely clear what that really means - and I don't think that is accidental.

@superqualia What I would say is that the above processes of deliberate obfuscation work best in consciousness-related subjects, but less well in a subject like the biology of evolution. If you know a modicum of biology and you read some of the books and articles from the Discovery Institute - plus the writings on the other side, you will begin to see how science works at the sociological level.

David
 
Top