Consciousness and the brain as a filter - Some questions

Another example would be Ersby's book on McMoneagle's (and others') performance during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The book itself is cheap (for the Kindle version), a quick read, and meticulously researched as well as well-written (there's no excuse not to read it). Yet when Ersby brought it up here for discussion to address claims made about McMoneagle, it was basically ignored.

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Imag...id=1427646052&sr=8-1&keywords=andrew+endersby

Linda
 
There are many ways to study animal behavior, especially today when very discreet recording can be done with camera no larger than a fingernail.
Yes, which is what I was saying... you need to be in the field to capture certain phenomena.
 
Yes he was, according to an article by Len Peyronnin:
It amazes me how folk can keep claiming all these debunked mediums or psychics were never caught in fraud, when such information is just a click away on the internet. Thing is there are actually some convincing psychics out there. I am not saying they are genuine but they are more believable than Serios or Palladino who truly were exposed and make believers look like idiots. Weird that you quote such blatant frauds in defence of psychic powers when you could be quoting better cases. You give easy ammo to the skeptics :)

You are just cherry picking the bits and pieces that help your point, not the whole story. :)

Palladino and Serios provided the best results in the most stringent controls. Not what you'd expect from two "blatant frauds". You seem too eager to jump to (your own) conclusions.
 
Eusapia Palladino? There are entire books written on her cheating.
There are entire books written on her.
In which it is also reported how she was caught cheating.

Palladino was an unsophisticated, illiterate peasant whose tricks could have fooled no one. In fact her tricks were pathetic. Strangely though, she delivered the best heavy object levitations when controlled by professional and very skeptical investigators. Such as the good people from the Society for Psychical Research.

But I am sure pseudo-skeptical websites have come up with fascinating conspiracy theories on how an analphabetic paisano duped some of best skeptical investigators of the time.
 
There are entire books written on her.
In which it is also reported how she was caught cheating.

Palladino was an unsophisticated, illiterate peasant whose tricks could have fooled no one. In fact her tricks were pathetic. Strangely though, she delivered the best heavy object levitations when controlled by professional and very skeptical investigators. Such as the good people from the Society for Psychical Research.
Wait, so she cheated, except not in the cases where you think she wasn't caught?

Okay, got it.

~~ Paul
 
Ok. You have no clue what you're talking about. Got it.
Well, explain it to me. You said:

"In fact her tricks were pathetic."

and then:

"Strangely though, she delivered the best heavy object levitations when controlled by professional and very skeptical investigators."

Sounds like she cheated but then there were experiments where she succeeded, so you are assuming she did not cheat in those cases. If that's not what you meant, please enlighten me.

~~ Paul
 
Yes, which is what I was saying... you need to be in the field to capture certain phenomena.

But with human subjects suggesting abilities they have, there is no need to be "in the field." One can be in a properly controlled environment, unless you are talking about something like alleged poltergeist activity.
 
Last edited:
Well, explain it to me. You said:

"In fact her tricks were pathetic."

and then:

"Strangely though, she delivered the best heavy object levitations when controlled by professional and very skeptical investigators."

Sounds like she cheated but then there were experiments where she succeeded, so you are assuming she did not cheat in those cases. If that's not what you meant, please enlighten me.
Read the reports, Paul, instead of making stuff up.
cheers
 
Yes he was, according to an article by Len Peyronnin:

It amazes me how folk can keep claiming all these debunked mediums or psychics were never caught in fraud, when such information is just a click away on the internet. Thing is there are actually some convincing psychics out there. I am not saying they are genuine but they are more believable than Serios or Palladino who truly were exposed and make believers look like idiots. Weird that you quote such blatant frauds in defence of psychic powers when you could be quoting better cases. You give easy ammo to the skeptics :)

Tell us something good psi researchers don't already know? You seem to think it's only skeptics who are aware of the potential of fraud and have worked to uncover it. Richard Hodgson before he joined the SPR, was a serious debunker and took pride in demonstrating fraudulent mediums. Then he ran into Leonora Piper, and spent the next 16 years of his life studying her.

The problem with pseudoskeptics like you Pantheist, is all you ever point out is the fraud. That's all we ever hear from guys like you. We never hear a discussion about the part of parapsychological research that provides solid evidence - or the 16 years worth of Piper mediumship and what it revealed regarding the phenomena of mediumship. What pseudoskeptics like you do is make the illogical jump that since fraud was present in one case, it must therefore have been present in all others.

No one who has seriously scientifically researched psi believes in you fairy tale pseudoskeptic logic.

My Best,
Bertha
 
The problem with pseudoskeptics like you Pantheist, is all you ever point out is the fraud. That's all we ever hear from guys like you. We never hear a discussion about the part of parapsychological research that provides solid evidence - or the 16 years worth of Piper mediumship and what it revealed regarding the phenomena of mediumship.
But why should we assume that all the frauds were discovered and so the remaining psychics are genuine? We certainly don't assume any such dichotomy in the rest of our lives. I guess I could give them the benefit of the doubt, but I'm just not that charitable.

No one who has seriously scientifically researched psi believes in you fairy tale pseudoskeptic logic.
Though there might be some other fairy tale logic at work.

~~ Paul
 
But why should we assume that all the frauds were discovered and so the remaining psychics are genuine? We certainly don't assume any such dichotomy in the rest of our lives. I guess I could give them the benefit of the doubt, but I'm just not that charitable.
We certainly shouldn't assume since fraud in some cases has been discovered the rest of the research is invalid.

Though there might be some other fairy tale logic at work.
~~ Paul
You mean like the materialistic fairy tale you believe in that from inert lifeless matter, consciousness magically and spontaneously arose?

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
No, but coupled with the lack of explanation about how it could possibly work, I tend to think that a lot more of it is probably fraud.

~~ Paul
Given the quality of scientists who have provided psi research (some including Nobel prize winners) and the quality of their publications in scientific journals, there is no reason (other than extreme bias against this class of phenomena), to make your assumption most of it was probably "fraud".

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
Given the quality of scientists who have provided psi research (some including Nobel prize winners) and the quality of their publications in scientific journals, there is no reason (other than extreme bias against this class of phenomena), to make your assumption most of it was probably "fraud".
Don't know about most. But when a particular person is shown to be fraudulent, I'm tempted to take all of her/his demonstrations as fraudulent. Or certainly suspect and so not compelling.

~~ Paul
 
Back
Top