Claire Broad, Psychic Mediumship and Science |427|

#41
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
It should become normal at a low level, with the odd spike. Once you get beyond the surprise and novelty the need for sharp conscious experiences seems to fall away. I have given up on trying to figure out why things happen, and just go with what happens.

I try to mess with things too. For instance I get plagued by 11:11 stuff in bursts and then try to avoid, only to find whatever is making this stuff happen plays along - so I will get 11:10 so I can avoid the 11:11 by not looking - then after a few days of that its back to the plague. A couple of weeks ago my odometer showed 111,112 - I missed the 111,111. Blast!

I think things can seem random, but they are not. I think they are deliberate - but I can't say I get the logic. A few months ago I started routinely being aware that I was dreaming, sometimes what seemed like all night, but more often in the morning. I am routinely in dreams in which I am with a group of people involved in discussion. Suddenly I say I have to go, and get up. Then my alarm goes off. This is new. Still going on - but for how long? Its like a constant provocation.

I don't pretend to know what is going on or why, but it seems some folk have regular psi experiences - not enough for them to claim to 'psychic' in any reliable sense, but enough for them to claim to have regular experiences and find it all becomes 'normal'.
 
#42
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).
And science can become politicized, and so much science today is unreplicable - I don't know if it would necessarily be a good thing for mainstream $cience to get involved in afterlife research. As it is now those who do the research are sincerely interested and they have to meet the highest standards for quality of research, experimental design etc. Maybe it is better this way?
 
#44
haha... from my perspective there's like 10 things wrong with that statement / question
Language is vague.

1. culturally not proven
2. philosophically not proven
3. historically not proven
4. politically not proven
5. scientifically not proven

I don't care that you likely disagree with the word proof. Wasn't that the word used by Eban Alexander? So prove it.

Dean radin (paraphrasing), "Proof is for alcohol not science"

Colloquially, it just means strong evidence. Social acceptance.

1. Western culture rejects the afterlife. Our hospital bills show overwhelming evidence of this.
2. Bernardo and perhaps a few of his friends would disagree and would simply start with consciousness, akin to the strategy of biblical presuppossitionalists
3. Despite claims that nde's are historically valid in the ancient world, such claims are as bogus as diagnosing saint paul with schizophrenia
4. You said this yourself many episodes ago -- nothing would change, which means its a belief like religion
5. how many scientifically "proven" facts are there? Not many.

Don't convince, don't cajole or harangue. Do the experiments with your opponent that shows you understand and can translate that from vague words into nearly infallible truth.

Alex, i like your show, but you, eben, etc are in a bubble and are overconfident.
 
Last edited:
#45
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.
Mathematical proof through modeling, experimenting, theorizing...the process of scientific inquiry, which ultimately is very refined, careful thinking. Not intuition alone, or just 'being' or consciousness.

I don't deny.
 
#47
Mathematical proof through modeling, experimenting, theorizing...the process of scientific inquiry, which ultimately is very refined, careful thinking. Not intuition alone, or just 'being' or consciousness.

I don't deny.
Yes but that misses out research such as that performed by Ian Stevenson, and others (to name just one example). I mean re-incarnation busts the conventional paradigm wide open, doesn't it?

From my perspective you have too much faith, not so much in science as such, but in the ability of modern scientific institutions with all their internal agendas and contracts to deliver truth.

David
 
#48
https://www.nbcnews.com/better/well...-god-yet-they-still-believe-afterlife-n542966
"Yet 80 percent of Americans said they believe in an afterlife in 2014, up from 73 percent in 1972-74. "
So they don't fear death but the treatment for cancer or not being able to take care of their kids? Or maybe they feel christian guilt about hell fire? Sure all possibilities.

But that's not what I mean. I mean why the relentless pursuit of life if the afterlife awaits? And what about wars? Because death defeats the enemy! So they believe.
 
#49
So they don't fear death but the treatment for cancer or not being able to take care of their kids? Or maybe they feel christian guilt about hell fire? Sure all possibilities.

But that's not what I mean. I mean why the relentless pursuit of life if the afterlife awaits? And what about wars? Because death defeats the enemy! So they believe.
Because when we are in a biological body we are driven by biological instincts? We eat, breathe, crap, have fight or flight reactions, and a will to live? We may be spirits but the containers we are in, our biological bodies, have to survive in a physical world with dangerous natural phenomenon and wild animals. The containers have to survive and perpetuate themselves - they are physical things and have to function within the limitations imposed by the laws of nature.

I think your question assumes people act rationally like logical computers. Like Mr. Spock on Star Trek. I don't think people are really like that. Emotions are not chosen by a logical choice. Rather people use logic to defend their emotional reactions. (The debates on skeptiko-forum, other internet forums, political debates, and life in general makes a lot more sense when viewed from that perspective.)


http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2018/04/your-logical-mind-is-illusion.html
Scott Adams:
We humans ignore facts but we think we don't. The great illusion of life is that we're rational beings making rational decisions most of the time. But when you become a hypnotist, the first thing you learn is that that's backwards and that mostly we're deciding based on our team, our feelings, our emotions, irrational reasons, we make our decision and then we rationalize it no matter how tortured that rationalization is."​
WILLIAM SALETAN discussing Johathan Haidt's work"
The problem isn’t that people don’t reason. They do reason. But their arguments aim to support their conclusions, not yours. Reason doesn’t work like a judge or teacher, impartially weighing evidence or guiding us to wisdom. It works more like a lawyer or press secretary, justifying our acts and judgments to others.​
 
Last edited:
#50
But that's not what I mean. I mean why the relentless pursuit of life if the afterlife awaits? And what about wars? Because death defeats the enemy! So they believe.
What you are saying - and I agree - is that there is no totally understandable reason why physical life should have any value if there is an afterlife. That might be true, but by exactly the same, rather simplistic argument, there is no point in watching a play or reading a novel because the events portrayed never happened! Equally, if you jump to the other extreme and decide to be a materialist, there still isn't a decent rational for pushing on with life - or doing anything - all that any of it amounts to, is a set of particles moving one way or in a slightly different way!

The truth is that nobody really believes the materialistic story - which is why that vast majority of people are not stuck in that nihilistic hole. I think this tells us something, which is that we all observe the world around us, and we also observe our own emotions and find ways to interact with other living creatures on the earth. Science has given us a very partial description of the reality we perceive, which it pretends extends to absolutely everything we perceive - but it obviously doesn't.

Some intellectual people take the concept that science (at least as currently formulated) can be extrapolated to cover everything - the universe, our emotions and memories etc - way too seriously because it is only natural to try to push ideas as far as possible, but they do this by disconnecting themselves from a great deal of life, or they play a game. The game is to split reality in two (without any scientific or other justification). One half of reality is the one where they fall in love, love their kids, dislike certain other people, respond to their hunches etc, the other reality is the one they use to discuss consciousness from a 'scientific' viewpoint.

David
 
#51
It may be the case that there is no single understandable reason why physical life should have any value if there is an afterlife. In fact there have been many ideas proposed, some of them take on the status of 'accepted' but in my opinion we need to spread our arms or open our eyes wide in looking for such ideas. There are many.

My own perspective is that I don't believe in any afterlife. I think there is only life. This life, the life before, the life after, all one continuum. Ideas of an afterlife are too Earth-centric, just as we used to believe that the Sun, the planets, the stars, all revolved around the Earth as the centre, ideas of an afterlife place this physical existence as a centre around which an afterlife revolves.
 
#53
From my perspective you have too much faith, not so much in science as such, but in the ability of modern scientific institutions with all their internal agendas and contracts to deliver truth.
This is a good point, David. Science is not the arbiter of the real. In fact it deals with only a small portion of reality. Love is probably the most pervasive theme in our culture these days - and where is the science of love? Nowhere. And yet we struggle in our various degrees of darkness and desperation on the matter - and science does not come to our succour.
 
#54
So they don't fear death but the treatment for cancer or not being able to take care of their kids? Or maybe they feel christian guilt about hell fire? Sure all possibilities.

But that's not what I mean. I mean why the relentless pursuit of life if the afterlife awaits? And what about wars? Because death defeats the enemy! So they believe.
Fair point. But please bear in mind that the faith of Christianity is predicated on the supposed revelation that [so long as you are obedient to the dogma of the faith] you will endure after death. While that's a complete distortion of the whole crucifixion thing it should explain why people raised in a Christian culture want to grapple with the idea of life after death. This isn't a problem for other cultures. Its just that Christianity spawned atheism added a whole bunch on needless doubts. We have to resolve this as a culture. The other things matter too, but how they matter depends on how the life after death question is answered.
 
#55
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
happy 70th David
 
#56
Mathematical proof through modeling, experimenting, theorizing...the process of scientific inquiry, which ultimately is very refined, careful thinking. Not intuition alone, or just 'being' or consciousness.

I don't deny.
Um, how exactly do you prove something by modelling it?

Models typically contain far too many bits of approximate logic, and guessed parameters - how do you produce a proof out of that?

https://notrickszone.com/2016/04/20...-hardly-trustworthy-says-top-climate-modeler/

David
 
#57
Some intellectual people take the concept that science (at least as currently formulated) can be extrapolated to cover everything - the universe, our emotions and memories etc - way too seriously because it is only natural to try to push ideas as far as possible, but they do this by disconnecting themselves from a great deal of life, or they play a game. The game is to split reality in two (without any scientific or other justification). One half of reality is the one where they fall in love, love their kids, dislike certain other people, respond to their hunches etc, the other reality is the one they use to discuss consciousness from a 'scientific' viewpoint.
Good stuff David [belated happy birthday btw]. This business of splitting reality in two is, I think, down to the fact that our culture has made the intellect the hero, and has shoved off the emotional side as that tatty bit of being human we have to put up with. The intellect is the highest form of human expression, so it must guide our highest aspirations.

If we go back to the dawn of The Enlightenment, we can see that 'mind' is a fiction invented to replace 'soul'. The evolution of popular atheism also transformed 'reason' from being a dialogue between the physical sense of self and the soul into an intellectual process taking place entirely within the human brain.

Archaic lore has it that the soul connects with the body via the brain and the heart. But the former focused on utility and the latter on relationships - the formed was heroed in a typically masculinist way.

So it is possible to not only split head and heart, but to build a wall between them - especially to stop heart from influencing head in the hard scrabble world of modernity [the industrial revolution and all that]..

Now we are moving back to a restoration of harmony between head and heart - with a whole new set of tools - scientific, technological, psychological and values.
 
#58
I am part way through Clear's book, "What the dead are trying to teach us" and it looks really good. Unlike any other book I have read,
she describes her own psychic experiences, the scientific research that has been done, and her work as a medium.

I must admit, I have bought a few books from Alex's Interviewees, and given up on them because they are frustratingly lightweight and naive - but I think this book is well worth everyone reading.

One tiny criticism I would make, is that when she describes the science done by the many investigators 'on our side' such as Ian Stephenson, she maybe fails to explain that these people's work is ignored by the bulk of science - which might mislead some people. That will not confuse anyone here.

David
 
#59
If we go back to the dawn of The Enlightenment, we can see that 'mind' is a fiction invented to replace 'soul'. The evolution of popular atheism also transformed 'reason' from being a dialogue between the physical sense of self and the soul into an intellectual process taking place entirely within the human brain.
Yes, I do remember when I was a Christian, puzzling over exactly what capabilities would be ascribed to the soul as opposed to the mind!

David
 
#60
I enjoyed listening to this interview with Claire, I didn’t disagree with much of what was said.

I do think that, for me, reincarnation provides a lot evidence, as much or more than many other forms. A lot of what these things come down to is trusting the people that tell us ‘the story’. For example I have been communicating occasionally with Jenny Cockell for years on Facebook. She is a no-nonsense type and I tend to believe what she says.

 
Top