Claire Broad, Psychic Mediumship and Science |427|

’m sure I’ve not grasped teachings, even when communicated. So, I’m not sure if there’s an active governance as in a divine intelligence, or whether it’s simply a case of awareness needing to be at a certain depth before understanding can reveal itself.
Hi Claire. I guess I see the two things as the same, and that inner teachers know this - its not just a head thing - if the heart is not developed then a given teaching cannot be taken as given. I have gone back over transcripts from sessions from 1980 and keep on finding deeper layers of meaning as I have matured. I get the sense that a teaching is given with the knowledge that will continue to stimulate the getting of wisdom into the future.

I have an interest that began with White (The Betty Book) and was continued with DeMarco (his Rita series) - concerning efforts to help us to 'get' what it is like 'on the other side'. This has to do with reframing thought and maybe developing new language (not so concrete). I particularly like Frank DeMarco's Awakening from the 3D World.

So I am curious as to whether you are encountering a similar kind of impetus. If there a particular theme of teachings you get?
 
Leslie Flint was a wonderful medium. I personally know people who sat in his séances and I’ve only ever heard positive things about both his character and his ability. I’m gutted I was only 19 when he died, so had not yet embarked on my own investigations of spirit communication. How I would have loved to hear his independent direct voice phenomena in person.
Claire,

Did you know (of) Marjorie Kite? She was a British trance medium. She would come to the US occasionally and she did a trance workshop at a Spiritualist church I attended. It was amazing to see the advanced students I knew from class having spirits speak through them. I have to admit it was a bit creepy at first but after a few different people took their turn, I got used to it.

Did you learn mediumship through a Spiritualist church? If not how did you get your training?
 
Last edited:
Hi Claire. I guess I see the two things as the same, and that inner teachers know this - its not just a head thing - if the heart is not developed then a given teaching cannot be taken as given. I have gone back over transcripts from sessions from 1980 and keep on finding deeper layers of meaning as I have matured. I get the sense that a teaching is given with the knowledge that will continue to stimulate the getting of wisdom into the future.

I have an interest that began with White (The Betty Book) and was continued with DeMarco (his Rita series) - concerning efforts to help us to 'get' what it is like 'on the other side'. This has to do with reframing thought and maybe developing new language (not so concrete). I particularly like Frank DeMarco's Awakening from the 3D World.

So I am curious as to whether you are encountering a similar kind of impetus. If there a particular theme of teachings you get?
Yes, I see what you mean. I find all readings have layers as does the channelling, so we are on the same page here. The teachings I get have the general theme of helping people in this life. Interestingly, I’ve received insights into antiquity and the nature of civilisation as “history repeats itself”. The communications do tend to be quite varied though. For example, one day I received information about crystal pyramids under the sea which was hard to swallow and then the next day it was about helping the deceased cross. There doesn’t seem to be rhyme or reason to the teachings. We go with the flow, but over time I can see themes staring to grow. A lot of stuff on ancestral past and healing, it seems.
 
Claire,

Did you know (of) Marjorie Kite? She was a British trance medium. She would come to the US occasionally and she did a trance workshop at a Spiritualist church I attended. It was amazing to see the advanced students I knew from class having spirits speak through them. I have to admit it was a bit creepy at first but after a few different people took their turn, I got used to it.

Did you learn mediumship through a Spiritualist church? If not how did you get your training?
I’m afraid I didn’t know Marjorie Kite, sorry. Yes, trance is a bit unsettling at first. I never do it in public for this reason. It can seem rather spooky. I’m quite sceptical of people who’s whole voices change and even accents, I must say. I don’t believe I experience this but, that’s not to say it’s not real, I just haven’t experienced it - yet. Did Marjorie’s whole persona change?

I trained for ten years every week in a Spiritualist church affiliated with the SNU until I fully fledged. I’m still in development but I’m now in a home circle. I also became accredited through the Institute of Spiritualist mediums. It was a personal choice not to affiliate myself with an accreditation through the SNU because I don’t want to be affiliated with any one religion. Whereas, the ISM is an educational body. Again, personal choice. I’ve been working with mediumship now for 23 years and I just keep on pealing back the layers of understanding and learning. I’m drawn these days to shamanism too and understanding the difference.
 
I’m afraid I didn’t know Marjorie Kite, sorry. Yes, trance is a bit unsettling at first. I never do it in public for this reason. It can seem rather spooky. I’m quite sceptical of people who’s whole voices change and even accents, I must say. I don’t believe I experience this but, that’s not to say it’s not real, I just haven’t experienced it - yet. Did Marjorie’s whole persona change?

I trained for ten years every week in a Spiritualist church affiliated with the SNU until I fully fledged. I’m still in development but I’m now in a home circle. I also became accredited through the Institute of Spiritualist mediums. It was a personal choice not to affiliate myself with an accreditation through the SNU because I don’t want to be affiliated with any one religion. Whereas, the ISM is an educational body. Again, personal choice. I’ve been working with mediumship now for 23 years and I just keep on pealing back the layers of understanding and learning. I’m drawn these days to shamanism too and understanding the difference.
Marjorie was authentic. I could tell she was accompanied by powerful guides. We had a meditation session before the trance workshop and I experienced a very strong connection with a spirit guide during it. During the trance workshop many people I knew from class or church functions took a turn and a different spirit would speak through each one. I knew them, many were friends, I could tell they weren't faking or "hypnotized". It was real. You could see the unique personality of each spirit coming through. The spirits that came through were not advanced guides but spirits of ordinary people who were there to help with the workshop. I didn't take a turn myself, I was a new student so I could only observe. We couldn't have done this without Marjorie and her guides - she was authentic.

I have seen problems in Spiritualist churches, but I don't expect any group of people to be above human nature so I don't hold it against them. I have a very favorable opinion of Spiritualism because it has kept psychic development alive while science has tried to stamp it out. Spiritualists live everyday among spirits and using their natural psychic abilities, and they share their mediumship and knowledge of the afterlife with the public through church services and classes. In the meantime the rest of society is mostly oblivious and mainstream science has been trying to deny what generations of ordinary people had known thousands of years before the scientific method was ever articulated and then misused to lead people away from their natural spirituality.
 
Last edited:
Marjorie was authentic. I could tell she was accompanied by powerful guides. We had a meditation session before the trance workshop and I had a very strong connection with a spirit guide during it. During the trance workshop many people I knew from class or church functions took a turn and a different spirit would speak through each one. I knew them, many were friends, I could tell they weren't faking or "hypnotized". It was real. I didn't take a turn myself, I was a new student so I could only observe, only the advanced students were allowed to try it.

But I know what you mean, we did have one local church where they tried to develop trance mediumship, they would give demonstrations, but anyone watching could tell they were fooling themselves.

I have seen problems in Spiritualist churches, but I don't expect any group of people to be above human nature so I don't hold it against them. I have a very favorable opinion of Spiritualism because it has kept psychic development alive while science has tried to stamp it out. Spiritualists live everyday among spirits and using their natural psychic abilities, and they share their mediumship and knowledge of the afterlife with the public through church services and classes. In the meantime the rest of society is mostly oblivious and mainstream science has been trying to deny what generations of ordinary people had known thousands of years before the scientific method was ever articulated and then misused to lead people away from their natural spirituality.
I honestly couldn’t agree more with what you’ve written here. There is much complaint about the quality of mediumship being watered down these days, but you’re right. If it wasn’t for everyday people keeping the practice alive, we would have lost a practice that helps people and, as you say, has been around far longer than modern day science. Society has become blinded by science and to the point where it is trusted above personal experience.
 
Yes, I see what you mean. I find all readings have layers as does the channelling, so we are on the same page here. The teachings I get have the general theme of helping people in this life. Interestingly, I’ve received insights into antiquity and the nature of civilisation as “history repeats itself”. The communications do tend to be quite varied though. For example, one day I received information about crystal pyramids under the sea which was hard to swallow and then the next day it was about helping the deceased cross. There doesn’t seem to be rhyme or reason to the teachings. We go with the flow, but over time I can see themes staring to grow. A lot of stuff on ancestral past and healing, it seems.
Yes, there's such a distinction between helping people with the life issues by opening them to the deeper dimensions of our reality and communications that are primarily intended to be developmental in a different way.

I am curious about 'ancestral past'. Do you mean chains of live reaching back , ancestral in terms of racial or cultural heritage [maybe involving group karma] or a broader sense of human ancestors?

I have been reading Graham Hancock's works extensively this year [revisiting most of them actually], so I am keenly interested "insights into antiquity and the nature of civilisation as “history repeats itself”. The recent Skeptiko show with Bruce Fenton relates.

Do you have enough material on this theme for another Skeptiko show?
 
Hiya, very interesting and I’ve experienced the same with my own spirit teachers who also refuse to do the work for me, but lead me to understanding instead. I tend to think of it like a loving parent. We know that if we do everything for our children, we are not helping them at all. We also keep knowledge from them because we know that until they reach a certain age or level of understanding, communication of that knowledge is futile. Also, even when we communicate some depth of knowledge, children often don’t realise the depth until they hold more wisdom themselves. I’m sure I’ve not grasped teachings, even when communicated. So, I’m not sure if there’s an active governance as in a divine intelligence, or whether it’s simply a case of awareness needing to be at a certain depth before understanding can reveal itself.
However, we normally take it for granted that parents are devoted to their kids and want the best for them. In adult life people we know may do things for less noble motives, and I think a lot of us here have doubts about the assumption that everything is done with our long term best interests at heart.

David
 
I honestly couldn’t agree more with what you’ve written here. There is much complaint about the quality of mediumship being watered down these days, but you’re right. If it wasn’t for everyday people keeping the practice alive, we would have lost a practice that helps people and, as you say, has been around far longer than modern day science. Society has become blinded by science and to the point where it is trusted above personal experience.
hi Claire... Thanks all these awesome responses!

I know I'm a little late to this party, but I wanted to re-emphasize (and thank you for) one point that has continued to resonate ever since our interview -- we are spirits.

of course we've all heard" we're spiritual beings living a human existence," but for some reason our interview drove this point home for me in a new way... what if our human existence really is just a small part of our spiritual whole... maybe we have assumed this particular role, on this stage, in this little out-of-the-way theater :)
 
Ghost in the Machine

I have been contemplating this of recent, the difference between an epistemological 'proof' (critical path of hypothesis to sound inference) - and those inferences which are drawn inside the realms of impulse and intuition (see below) - and why this putative realm would exhibit a prejudice of sorts, towards different approaches to inference and fact.

If I am to prove that methylfolate for instance, is a better supplement than folic acid for those who are MTHFR (and help alleviate the entailed lifelong suffering and loss in 8% of the population) - I can accomplish this by walking the path of epistemology. I set up a series of 8 experiments/tests in incremental critical path sequence of the questions being asked. And arrive at the answer: Folate uptake is 6 times more effective in the MTHFR gene individual with methylfolate, than with folic acid.
awesome! but would suggest that the distinction between these two are more fuzzy than you have outlined here.

dean radin's double slit experiment is highly statistically significant... six sigma... it's "proof." but the implications are that the folic acid experiment you outlined above was lacking an important control... i.e. you didn't account for the fact that the meditator from dean radin experiment might have been concentrating/ meditating on your experiment also.
 
haven't ok we've proven that this doesn't exist?
I'm not sure what you mean. So hopefully this helps.

I think part of what we are here to learn is reason/logic/testing -> ergodicity effect so that we do not become dangerous in our ability to create. Dangerous to our fellows in the next realm (if it exists).

If someone repeatedly focuses upon revenge and frothing over people they do not like in this realm - and stays solely in the personal-subjective context, never choosing to align their works with the reason/logic/method/experimental disciplines (ethics), do I want them with me in the next realm where their power is now increased? Heck no!! :)

It would be like handing loaded M-16's to new recruits, shoving them all into a room, turning off the lights and yelling "There they are!! Attack!!"

We flip the lights back on to find that we have a room full of now dead new recruits.
 
I think part of what we are here to learn is reason/logic/testing
I keep referring to dean radin double slit experiment so we have a common point of reference. this experiment seems to suggest that max planck and other great pioneers in quantum physics were right when they reached the conclusion that consciousness is fundamental and we are thus co-creators of our reality.

my gripe is not that we've do the shut up and calculate thing, but that we pretend that our engineering accomplishments allow us to escape the the true implications of the observer effect.

so, it seems to me that "reason / logic / testing" needs to be put in quotes and correctly categorized " co-created consensus reality" versus treating it as some kind of exalted objective reality.

of course, I have no idea what any of this really means, but my point is I don't think you can claim to have any idea of what it means either :)

do I want them with me in the next realm where their power is now increased? Heck no!! :)
ok, this is like a tiny point, but at the same time it's a huge point because episode 427 with claire broad changed my understanding of this. what if beings in the extended consciousness realm are not more powerful than I am... what if we're all spiritual beings playing out a role with a particular set of limitations / possibilities.
 
I keep referring to dean radin double slit experiment so we have a common point of reference. this experiment seems to suggest that max planck and other great pioneers in quantum physics were right when they reached the conclusion that consciousness is fundamental and we are thus co-creators of our reality.

my gripe is not that we've do the shut up and calculate thing, but that we pretend that our engineering accomplishments allow us to escape the the true implications of the observer effect.

so, it seems to me that "reason / logic / testing" needs to be put in quotes and correctly categorized " co-created consensus reality" versus treating it as some kind of exalted objective reality.

of course, I have no idea what any of this really means, but my point is I don't think you can claim to have any idea of what it means either :)


ok, this is like a tiny point, but at the same time it's a huge point because episode 427 with claire broad changed my understanding of this. what if beings in the extended consciousness realm are not more powerful than I am... what if we're all spiritual beings playing out a role with a particular set of limitations / possibilities.
OK, I think I see what you are saying. The direction I was headed, I believe was in support of what you are pointing to.

I am working through a thought experiment concerning the double slit test right now. A groundbreaking paper was just released in April by Dr. Rangarajan Sagunthala, of Veltech Chennai, India which has taken a new tack (at least to me, someone who is David Deutsch trained) on the double slit phenomenon and its implications on particle-wave duality. Paper is below:

This 'photon-detector' version of the Double-Slit experiment serves to postulate several things:

1. It confirms that the Intentional Observation of a photon (not merely the presence of Consciousness) - serves to irrevocably alter its quantum state expression at a later time inside physical reality (to the discrete state of either a photon's Eigenvector location, or the wave's Complex Variable Space frequency and amplitude, but no longer both)
Intent is fundamental to reality. I can be a conscious observer, and a quantum Schrödinger state can still exist - but unless the observer Intends to observe that state, it will not change to a discrete state. So it is Intent and not simply Consciousness, which causes the net change to the quantum environment.
2. It brings into question the ultimate cause of the wave-like/particle-like dispersion of EMF energy in the double slit experiment, as the effect of a two-fold universe, rather than innate wave particle duality per se we observe as its outcome.
Sagunthala postulates that our universe consists of two layered components which occupy the same physical space. One is called our physical Three Dimensional EigenSpace (3DES or particle space), and the second 'Universe' is called the Complex (Number) Variable Space (CVS or wave space). The second universe existing on the founding nature of the square root of negative one (imaginary numbers).
That further then an EMF-quantum exists in a state called Instantaneous Resonant Spatial Mode (IRSM) which unifies these two 'universes' if you will, until an observer in our realm acts upon it with Intent, not merely our existence as consciousness. Thereafter the particle is transformed into either an Eigenspace entity or a Complex Variable Space entity, but no longer both.
Theta would therefore be the very very small separation between these two universes, which might account for both the Theory of Quantized Inertia (Physicisit Mike McCulloch) as well as the Dispersion of Fast Radio Bursts as they travel through the cosmos.
Below I have removed 1 dimension from each of the two universes (to make them planes), and time. This way the relationship is simplified into a conceptual representation.
irsm.png
And indeed, as you and Dean Radin are contending, if Intent is fundamental, then claims to Nihilism have already been falsified. We only lack to know the reach of this Intent, and cannot pre-suppose its bound.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
T.E.S.

This is just a couple of quick comments on the above (because I find Skeptiko is stuffed with more distractions than I could cope with in a 100 years, even if I didn't get dementia).

1) I do remember that there was a fad for physics models with an extra dimension or two to cope with phenomena like consciousness and psychic phenomena. They never seemed to get much traction, and I think a big problem was that adding more maths doesn't touch the old qualia problem!

2) Because people can cause PK events in al sorts of apparatus, if they do so in a double slit experiment (as in Dean Radin's experiment) it isn't clear what they are actually doing.

David
 
1) I do remember that there was a fad for physics models with an extra dimension or two to cope with phenomena like consciousness and psychic phenomena. They never seemed to get much traction, and I think a big problem was that adding more maths doesn't touch the old qualia problem!
Actually they were coping with the mathematics, which are forcing us to specific exotic considerations - just as maths forced us to the Higgs-Boson. Even in absence of psychic phenomena or qualia considerations at all. In this instance we have maths pointing into a 'box' of deliberation (dimensionality), and double-slit observations pointing into a similar box as well. Eventually we found that gravity was valid, even though we originally only had the apple experiment and math - and even still we have no idea what it is, but that does not make gravity a fad.

But yes, aside from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) it is difficult to craft experiments which serve to deductively confirm extra dimensions (or extra universes in the case of Deutsch).
 
T.E.S.

This is just a couple of quick comments on the above (because I find Skeptiko is stuffed with more distractions than I could cope with in a 100 years, even if I didn't get dementia).

1) I do remember that there was a fad for physics models with an extra dimension or two to cope with phenomena like consciousness and psychic phenomena. They never seemed to get much traction, and I think a big problem was that adding more maths doesn't touch the old qualia problem!

2) Because people can cause PK events in al sorts of apparatus, if they do so in a double slit experiment (as in Dean Radin's experiment) it isn't clear what they are actually doing.

David
Actually they were coping with the mathematics, which are forcing us to specific exotic considerations - just as maths forced us to the Higgs-Boson...
I lean with David (and Plank)... fundamental ( as in consciousness is fundamental) means fundamental :)
 
I lean with David (and Plank)... fundamental ( as in consciousness is fundamental) means fundamental :)
So are you saying that every action in the universe is the deliberate act of an individual will that it do so? Or that only the law it behaves was Intended?

There is fundamental as in 'substrate' - (a necessary base or core) - like the foundation of a building or underlayment of a slab or road​
There is plenary as in 'comprised in its entirety' - (the complete essence of something)​

You mean the latter? Because I take the word to mean the former - and that is the cause for some confusion then :)

Of course the universe in both cases can well be an illusion... however, specifying that a conscious will directs every quantum action in the universe... are you contending that?
 
Last edited:
T.E.S,

Let me elaborate. When people say that looking at the laws of physics (whatever they mean by that) they don't see any way to include consciousness, we all tend to agree - that is why there is a "Hard Problem".

Now there is nothing special about the particular set of laws we have, but a lot of us intuit that deterministic laws plus one law which is totally non-deterministic - the Born rule for calculating probabilities from the wave-function - can't give us consciousness. If we supplement the existing laws with some more of roughly similar type, I don't think anything gives.

My inclinations are towards Idealism, but as I have said before, I think that is a conclusion that should only be reached after much more scientific exploration, because it seems like a bit of a cop-out. I haven't looked at Bernardo Kastrup for some time, but it has always seemed to me that he is left with nothing but metaphors to discuss, because as you imply, the old answer, "God willed it" isn't very interesting!

I mean, I don't know how the universe is put together (LOL), but in addition to Idealism, I begin to wonder if whatever (group of) consciousness runs the show, it/they can take a lot of short-cuts - just like games programmers do. Maybe only quantum systems in lab settings are modelled properly, while others are approximated in who knows what ways. Go back a few centuries, and this whole process would have required far less conscious computation (to coin a phrase) than it does now, there were no deliberate quantum experiments, and if light didn't behave quite the same as it does now filtering through slits in some fabric, who caresd?

David
 
I begin to wonder if whatever (group of) consciousness runs the show, it/they can take a lot of short-cuts - just like games programmers do. Maybe only quantum systems in lab settings are modelled properly, while others are approximated in who knows what ways. Go back a few centuries, and this whole process would have required far less conscious computation (to coin a phrase) than it does now, there were no deliberate quantum experiments, and if light didn't behave quite the same as it does now filtering through slits in some fabric, who cares?
didn't rupert sheldrick show this 20 years ago:
Could Experimenter Effects Occur in the Physical and ... ( this is a very tame version published in scientific inquirer, but you get the point)

here's the sharper edge of the spear:
An Experimental Test of the Hypothesis of Formative Causation

So are you saying that every action in the universe is the deliberate act of an individual will that it do so? Or that only the law it behaves was Intended?
I'm just an inquiry to perpetuate doubt guy :)
 
Top