Ex-Stargate Head Ed May Unyielding Re Materialism, Slams Dean Radin |341|

Brian_the_bard

Lost Pilgrim
Member
And it's no coincidence that a billion plus people can remain Christian and be explicitly referred to as a flock of sheep (even "pastor" means shepherd in Latin)...
I saw a lot of truth in what you said in your post but I think its easy to confuse the biblical metaphor with the derogatory usage. It's actually a very loose metaphor and I must say, I wouldn't want to be turned into lamb cutlets or mutton broth, which is part of the industry a shepherd belongs to. We don't follow just anybody, we follow Christ because we believe there is enough evidence to justify trusting him, and of course, because we like what he stands for. This is the only reason the bible references us as sheep and I think the derogatory term sheep is an inaccurate view of how sheep actually behave. They only follow the real shepherd and only because they see reason to trust him.
 
How do you explain it?
I can't, you've got me there. But I don't see any way how it would work with light or sound or actual molecules from the targets stimulating sensory organs, which I guess is the normal, materialistic way of explaining perception. If anything, it's like there is a field of awareness pervading literally everything, which we can access. Btw., it's possible I literally didn't get how he explains it (not sure if I understood everything, I'm not a native speaker).
 
Last edited:
I saw a lot of truth in what you said in your post but I think its easy to confuse the biblical metaphor with the derogatory usage. It's actually a very loose metaphor and I must say, I wouldn't want to be turned into lamb cutlets or mutton broth, which is part of the industry a shepherd belongs to. We don't follow just anybody, we follow Christ because we believe there is enough evidence to justify trusting him, and of course, because we like what he stands for. This is the only reason the bible references us as sheep and I think the derogatory term sheep is an inaccurate view of how sheep actually behave. They only follow the real shepherd and only because they see reason to trust him.
That's an interesting admission.

The Bible does give a multi-faceted picture of sheep, and there are different emphases but also an overarching pattern:
-In the Old Testament, sheep are repeatedly and explicitly portrayed as the shepherd's possession; a possession to shear, to trade, to slaughter and to eat.

-Then in the New Testament, the relationship between the shepherd and sheep is portrayed more warmly, as you pointed out, of the shepherd knowing and protecting his sheep. Sheep are, however, portrayed as confused and lacking their own guidance. There are also a couple of passages where the possession part of the relationship, and about shearing and slaughter are mentioned:

It is often repeated that a sheep of Christ must give himself up to his shepherd. And there are references to the shearing and slaughter part too (e.g. The Acts of the Apostles 8:30-33, emphasis added):

'Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.'

So despite promises of eternal life because of giving one's soul away, what happens to a sheep is shearing and slaughter. This is also shown elsewhere in the New Testament, such as in The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, 8:36-37:

'As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.'

So the author admits that sheep are for the slaughter, but the twist is that the sheep are really conquerors! Nietzsche called this slave morality: that is, being weak and humiliated but trying to change this position into a virtue.

But even as the Bible often enough portrays: sheep are possessions: they are weak and stupid, and need to be protected and guided, in order to be sheared, traded, slaughtered and consumed.
 
Last edited:

Brian_the_bard

Lost Pilgrim
Member
[QUOTE="Nelson, post: 109510, member: 3598"But even as the Bible often enough portrays: sheep are possessions: they are weak and stupid, and need to be protected and guided, in order to be sheared, traded, slaughtered and consumed.[/QUOTE]
Then look what it means. "All who wish to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" The slaughter isn't done by the shepherd in this case.

Anyway, I am out of here. I intended to talk about the attitude "weak minded" not christianity.

Weak minded people are not those who hold to a view different to your own, but those who insult people for their beliefs because they are insecure about their own!
 
Then look what it means. "All who wish to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" The slaughter isn't done by the shepherd in this case.
I thought you'd argue that angle. On face value it seems a valid point. However, if people are assumed to be like sheep and told to behave like sheep, then what does one expect in a world with wolves (and hungry shepherds too -- after all, the Xian priests are called shepherds too)...

A further point: even according to received history, the scale of polytheistic actions against Christians was minuscule in comparison to the massive scale attacks by the Church against non-believers.

Anyway, I am out of here. I intended to talk about the attitude "weak minded" not christianity.
No need to leave. Most of what I wrote was simply reporting what the Bible itself reports: namely that sheep are possessions; and in the OT & NT, sheep are described as weak and stupid, and therefore they need to be protected and guided, in order (at least according to the OT) to be sheared, traded, slaughtered and consumed.
 
if people are assumed to be like sheep and told to behave like sheep, then what does one expect in a world with wolves (and hungry shepherds too -- after all, the Xian priests are called shepherds too)...
And to make matters worse, there is compelling evidence that Xianity was a psy-op. Namely, that in order for a priest-class to take over, it was necessary to destroy the primordial tradition of loyalty to family and tribe.

As the Jesus character himself says:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple."
 
However, let's suppose each twin sends out clock pulses to the other and these are detected perfectly.

While they are separating, both will observe the other's clock pulses and say the other is ageing more slowly. Effectively more and more clock pulses are stored in the gap between them, which is growing all the time. Then, as they start to decelerate and reverse, each of them will detect a lot of clock pulses from each other and as they move back together, they will receive more clock pulses from each other. By the time they get home, they will each have received the same number of clock pulses as the other - and so have aged the same amount!

That's cute! The logic seems very simple and sound (all pulses transmitted must be received), yet it adds up to neither twin being time-dilated in the end, regardless of anyone's state of acceleration. Not the mainsteam interpretation but hard to argue against.

My head hurts.

Regards, Nate
 
That's cute! The logic seems very simple and sound (all pulses transmitted must be received), yet it adds up to neither twin being time-dilated in the end, regardless of anyone's state of acceleration. Not the mainsteam interpretation but hard to argue against.

My head hurts.

Regards, Nate
Well I think the standard response is that the situation is unsymmetrical, and the algebra of Lorenz transformations tells us that the moving twin experiences in less time than his stay at home twin.

I think I could do the algebra for this - just about after so many years - but I don't think it is the algebra that is the issue here - it is the interpretation.

Note that Lorenz transformations 'explain' Maxwell's equations neatly. A stationary charge in one frame becomes an electric current in another frame, and that generates a magnetic field. I think it was Maxwell's equations that gave rise to SR.

However, there is something called Lorenzian Relativity which produces the same results as SR for earth based experiments, but it is based on the idea of an aether.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4534.pdf

I'm going to read that paper to remind myself what exactly it claims.

The aether was supposedly ruled out by the famous MM experiment, but things get more complicated if the aether exists but is dragged by the earth (presumably all suitably heavy objects). I believe the aether is also ruled out by some other measurements (stellar aberration) but I suppose I wish there was less of a rush to decide theories like this - more keeping of an open mind.

I think it would be interesting to perform the MM experiment in deep space, or maybe in a highly elliptical earth orbit.

David
 
However, there is something called Lorenzian Relativity which produces the same results as SR for earth based experiments, but it is based on the idea of an aether.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4534.pdf
Thanks, that paper looks interesting. I've read a number of papers about Lorentzian Relativity, several of which make the claim that LR produces the same results as SR (in the simple case with a stationary 'flat space' ether and both particles and photons/EM waves as patterns of movement in the ether). Always interested in alternate takes on this. I agree that the problem with SR is not quite the maths but what the maths represents - because I think our scientific habit (mainstream since at least the 1970s) of replacing intuitive 'mental models' with raw mathematics has closed us off from some sources of intuition in the more creative aspects of our minds. To go beyond the numbers we have to have some sense of what the numbers mean (ie, point to / map onto in the larger world beyond the equations), and also what the numbers don't currently model.

I really like this phrase in Shanahan ( the paper above):

Unlike the carousel rider who sees the fairground whirling about her, but is under no illusion as to what is really happening, Buzz has suffered relativistic changes in his vital processes, and lost the means of discernment. For Buzz the LT will describe very well his altered perspective. But it would be as inappropriate to explain length contraction, time dilation and loss of simultaneity as resulting from a physical transformation of space or spacetime as it would be to describe the rotation of an object in 3-space as a rotation of space rather than a rotation in space.
..
Indeed the Minkowski metric should itself be seen as a kind of illusion, and as a consequence rather than the cause of this change in matter.​

Exactly. Surely local changes to an object's local state-of-movement can only ever cause local effects. That is, if we want our theory of time and space and motion (as Einstein did) to be a local theory not a nonlocal one.

It's weird how SR embeds both nonlocality and observer-dependence deep into the roots of modern physics, despite Einstein's later strenuous opposition to both as they emerged in the quantum theory! He was a man of many contradictions.

The existence of psi and NDEs, of course, may well argue for fundamental nonlocality and acausality in all things. But saying 'spacetime is the explanation' seems to betray a very odd kind of lack of curiosity in Einstein's followers. Something that Einstein himself didn't suffer from.

Regards, Nate
 
Last edited:
Thanks, that paper looks interesting. I've read a number of papers about Lorentzian Relativity, several of which make the claim that LR produces the same results as SR (in the simple case with a stationary 'flat space' ether and both particles and photons/EM waves as patterns of movement in the ether).
My understanding is that the two theories would definitely diverge inouter space if it turns out that the MM experiment produced its null result because of Aether drag when on the earth.

BTW, I seem to remember that Rupert Sheldrake (or maybe someone else) commented that this experiment didn't produce a totally null result, but a very small change as the earth went round the sun - suggesting perhaps an aether that was incompletely dragged by the earth.

David
 
From the transcript:
Dr. Ed May: No, they cannot report to you while their brain is dysfunctioning. All you know is, beforehand they had some experience, after-hand when they wake up they have some experience, and they report to you afterwards, what they saw while they were “dead”. You don’t know whether they got that after, retro-cognitively by normal ESP way to do it. You can’t do that, you just can’t.
Dean Radin also believes veridical pereptions during NDEs are best explained as clairvoyance and not as out of the body consciousness.

I’ve always found Dean Radin to be absolutely one of the smartest guys in the room, when it comes to parapsychology; and certainly a topnotch, careful researcher.
Dean Radin wrote: ""... the primary anomalies associated with NDEs are reports of veridical perceptions that could not have been known or inferred from the perspective of the patient ... So the OBE aspects of NDEs do not necessarily imply an actual separation from the body, and hence NDEs can be interpreted as a particularly vivid form of clairvoyance in brains that are not operating normally."

I replied to this in another thread:

...

And Dean Radin, Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, is doing his part to limit the NDE phenomenon:
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2014/03/was-buddha-just-nice-guy.html
Dean Radin said...
...But until we find evidence that memory is not brain-centric, and that it too can persist without a body, then the question about precisely *what* survives remains unresolved.
...
On alternative interpretations of NDEs ...

I was invited to write an article on this topic for Missouri Medicine, a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the Missouri State Medical Association. You can read the journal online here: http://www.omagdigital.com/publication?i=177483. See the Sept/Oct issue for the beginning of a series of articles on NDEs.

My article was published in a 2014 issue, so it isn't available online yet. The bottom line of my argument was that the primary anomalies associated with NDEs are reports of veridical perceptions that could not have been known or inferred from the perspective of the patient.

For someone who is not familiar with clairvoyance, this type of report could be taken as evidence that the mind has literally separated from the body (i.e., gone OBE). The literal interpretation is consistent with survival of consciousness. But veridical reports of distant events is virtually the same as what we know as clairvoyance-in-the-living. So the OBE aspects of NDEs do not necessarily imply an actual separation from the body, and hence NDEs can be interpreted as a particularly vivid form of clairvoyance in brains that are not operating normally.
"... the primary anomalies associated with NDEs are reports of veridical perceptions that could not have been known or inferred from the perspective of the patient ... So the OBE aspects of NDEs do not necessarily imply an actual separation from the body, and hence NDEs can be interpreted as a particularly vivid form of clairvoyance in brains that are not operating normally."
Anyone who thinks veridical perception is the primary anomaly of a phenomenon where a person with no brain activity has a conscious experience doesn't understand the phenomenon. Clairvoyance in brains that are not operating normally cannot explain veridical NDEs because some NDEs occur when the brain is not in an abnormal state and the abnormal brain states associated with cardiac arrest, before, during, and after the event are not capable of producing coherent lucid experiences.

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2013/07/materialist-explanations-of-ndes-fail.html
Greyson
However, unconsciousness produced by cardiac arrest characteristically leaves patients amnesic and confused for events immediately preceding and following these episodes (Aminoff et al., 1988; Parnia & Fenwick, 2002; van Lommel et al., 2001). Furthermore, a substantial number of NDEs contain apparent time "anchors" in the form of verifiable reports of events occurring during the period of insult itself. For example, a cardiac-arrest victim described by van Lommel et al. (2001) had been discovered lying in a meadow 30 minutes or more prior to his arrival at the emergency room, comatose and cyanotic, and yet days later, having recovered, he was able to describe accurately various circumstances occurring in conjunction with the ensuing resuscitation procedures in the hospital.

Also see the next section below: The experience occurred during CPR
The experience occurred during CPR:
Long
When you talk to the patients who have actually survived CPR, one thing that is very, very obvious is that the substantial majority of them are confused or amnesic, even when they're successfully recovered. They may be amnesic for the period of time following their successful resuscitation or even for events prior to the time of their cardiac arrest.

...

If you read even a few near-death experiences, you immediately realize that there’s essentially none of them that talk about episodes of confusion or altered mental status when they just don’t understand what’s going on. You really don’t see that at all.

Again, for near-death experiences, they're highly lucid, organized events. In fact, in the survey we did, we found 76% of people having a near-death experience said their level of consciousness and alertness during the NDE was actually greater than their earthly, everyday life. So again, getting back to statistics, that’s 3/4 and a substantial majority of the remaining 24% still had at least a level of consciousness and alertness equal to their earthly, everyday life.

So for that to be the statistics that you consistently see during near-death experiences and balance that with a substantial majority of people being confused around the time of their successful resuscitation from CPR, you really have to come away with the conclusion that even if there’s blood flow to the brain induced by CPR, it's a life-saving maneuver. By no means is that correlated with clear consciousness and certainly nowhere near the level of consciousness and alertness with near-death experiences. You just don’t see that.

But also, in addition to that, note that the substantial majority of people that have a near-death experience and have an out-of-body experience associated with cardiac arrest, are actually seeing their physical body well prior to the time that CPR is initiated. Once CPR is initiated, you don’t see any alteration in the flow of the near-death experience, suggesting that whatever blood flow might be going back to the brain is affecting the content, modifying it at all, in any way.

...

When there’s a cardiac arrest, the out-of-body observations that are often described during these near-death experiences certainly correlates to a time prior to CPR being initiated, and prior to a time there should be no possibility of a conscious, lucid, organized experience. And yet that’s exactly what happens.

I'll tell you another thing, too, is if you were doing CPR and that were accounting for memory, I would tell you that you would hear a lot more from near-death experiencers. They would talk about their remembrance of the pain of the chest compressions.

Alex, that’s a fairly painful procedure. It often breaks ribs and hurts. And yet, even when you have a patient who had a cardiac arrest and had a near-death experience, essentially never do you hear them describing as part of their near-death experience the pain of chest compressions.

...

And if their consciousness was really returning during CPR, wouldn't near-death experiencers not have out-of-body perceptions but describe their perceptions from within their physical body? And yet you don’t see that with near-death experiences.

So in other words, if you started CPR and they had a near-death experience and suddenly they started to have some consciousness, you’d expect that instead of having the out-of-body experience where their consciousness is apart from their body, their consciousness would be within their body. You just don’t see that.
Anomalous Characteristics of Near-death Experiences
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/anomalous-characteristics-of-near-death.html
Anomalous Characteristics of Near-death Experiences

Enhanced consciousness such as realer-than-real detail, 360 degree vision, and colors not seen before.

Blind people see during NDEs. (Hogan)

Memories of NDEs are more detailed than normal memories.

Visions of deceased people, sometimes deceased people the experiencer had never met or seen pictures of. (Hogan)

A life review where the experiencer feels how he affected other people from their point of view.

Veridical (verifiable) perceptions where the experiencer perceived something when their brain was not functioning, and or perceived something that they could not have perceived with their normal senses even if they were conscious.

NDEs have been experienced by people not close to death.

"Lucid consciousness, well-structured thought processes, and clear reasoning" (Beauregard), calmness and tranquility (near-death.com), when their medical condition should cause confusion and amnesia, disorientation and fear.

Spiritual transformation.

NDEs involve a subjectively conscious experience while the experiencer is objectively unconscious. Hallucinations almost always occur when the subject is awake and conscious. (near-death.com)

NDEs occur more often during flat EEGs and not during abnormal EEGs. (Hogan)

"NDEs are remarkably consistent across virtually all experiencers regardless of age, nationality, religious background, and all other demographics", including atheists. (Hogan)

"Many parts of the brain must be coherent for lucid experiences to occur yet NDEs occur when there is no EEG activity." (Hogan)

NDErs experience "heightened awareness, attention, and memory at a time when consciousness and memory formation are not expected to be functioning" and "only confusional and paranoid thinking... should occur" (Hogan)

"In some cases, a third party has observed visionary figures seen by the experiencers" (Tymn)

Healthy people attending the dying sometimes share in the NDE. (Facco and Christian)

Because of the way the brain is wired, it cannot produce an NDE. (Alexander)

Many NDEs occur during anesthesia when the patient should be unconscious. (Long)

"The most important objection to the adequacy of all ... reductionistic hypotheses is that mental clarity, vivid sensory imagery, a clear memory of the experience, and a conviction that the experience seemed more real than ordinary consciousness are the norm for NDEs. They occur even in conditions of drastically altered cerebral physiology under which the production theory would deem consciousness impossible. (Greyson)
From the transcript: "when I bring through somebody’s departed grandmother from 1894, and I have her name and I know what she looked like; and then they’ll bring me the picture and I [know] her nickname and everything else…And I bring that through because I’ve learned how to do this, and I’ve spent thousands of dollars traveling the world to learn how to do this for ten years. When I bring that through and the Noetic Society’s testing me and everything else to see how it’s done, they’ll turn around and say, well you’re just reading their minds with ESP."

Scientists are entitled to say what the limits of the scientific evidence are. However science is not the only means to ascertaining the truth. When scientists ignore other sources of information and imply the limited scientific view is the only reliable view, that is a misuse of science it is Scientism.

Superpsi cannot explain the evidence for the afterlife:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2009/06/survival-and-super-psi.html
Evidence For Survival that cannot be Explained by Super Psi:

Drop-in Communicators: A medium might be said to be fulfilling an unconscious psychological need when using super-psi to obtain information about deceased relatives of the sitters. However when the medium brings through spirits who are unrelated to the sitters and who communicate for purposes of their own, there is no psychological motivation. Super-psi cannot explain these cases.

Cross Correspondences: When more than one medium spontaneously, without being prodded by an investigator, brings through parts of a message, and the message only makes sense when the parts are put together, this indicates that spirits are independent of any medium. This also shows that spirits have initiative and the ability to organize complex tasks. Super-psi cannot explain this.

Spirits have to learn to communicate through certain forms of mediumship and some spirits are better learners than others. Super-psi is not a good explanation for this phenomenon.

Other characteristics of spirit communication vary with the spirit not the medium or the sitters.

Some haunting phenomena are not dependent on the presence of any single person, some of which are ended through spirit communication. Guy Lyon Playfair, William Roll, and Ian Stevenson all thought some poltergeist phenomenon were caused by spirits.

Birthmarks: When a child remembers a past life, and has a birthmark at a location of an injury in the past life, it suggests the spirit body may carry information from one life to the next. It would be absurd to believe the fetus was psychic and was fulfilling a psychological need by unconsciously creating the birth mark.

Shared Death Bed Visions, Shared Near-Death Experiences, and Multiple Witness Crisis Apparitions are not well explained by super-psi. You'd have to be a super-duper-psychic not just a super-psychic to induce hallucinations in other people.

Near Death Experiences: Cases of NDEs where the experiencer has vivid realer-than-real experiences when there is no brain activity and no veridical information, cannot be explained as psi from a living person because there is no evidence of psi and no live person during the experience. These experiences cannot be explained as ESP during an abnormal brain state shortly before or after the experience. Near-death experiencers neurosurgeon Dr. Eben Alexander, psychiatrist Dr. Carl Jung, and military remote viewer Joe McMoneagle, who have special qualifications to judge the phenomenon, all believed their near-death experiences represented evidence for survival after death.

ESP is not Produced by the Brain: ESP is not limited by time or distance. It cannot be explained by the known laws of physics including quantum entanglement. Since human consciousness is capable of ESP, consciousness cannot be the result of any physical process in the brain. Anyone who acknowledges the reality of ESP has already admitted that consciousness is non-physical so they have no grounds upon which to deny survival of consciousness.
Mrs Piper's mediumship cannot be explained by ESP
Hodgson gave these five main reasons why he favored survival after death over telepathy as an explanation for Mrs. Pipers mediumship:
Skill in communicating varied with the spirit not the sitters. If Mrs. Piper obtained information from the sitters by telepathy, the quality of the information should vary with the sitter not the spirit.

Some spirits were never good at communicating.

Some spirits were better than others at communicating names.

During otherwise successful sitting where some spirits were able to communicate clearly, sometimes certain spirits well known to the sitters were not able to communicate clearly. This often occurred with spirits who had suffered from a long illness or a mental disturbance at the time of death. This confusion in a communicator was sometimes unexpected by the sitters particularly when the person was noted for clear thinking in life.

All spirits had trouble communicating at first but improved with practice.

This occurred even when the sitters were experienced and had had other spirits come through.

Difficulty in communicating could be overcome with the assistance of other spirits. Telepathy does not explain this.

Spirits seemed to be confused for a few days just after death.

This confusion was not due to changing the sitters. It occurred when the sitters remained the same.

Stray thoughts from the spirits (not the medium or sitter) seemed to leak through into the communications if the spirit was having difficulty communicating.

These thoughts reflected subjects that would be of particular concern to the spirit such as situations involving living relatives but which were unknown to the sitters.

These stray thoughts were thought to explain some of the seeming failures of spirits to correctly answer questions aimed and proving their identity. This is not explained by telepathy.

When spirits communicated by writing and controlled the medium themselves, confusion was apparent. When spirits communicated indirectly through speech by the spirit control Phinuit, confusion on the part of the spirit was obscured because Phinuit was acting as an intermediate. This explains some of the failures of spirits to correctly answer questions aimed at proving their identity, and explains some instances when Phinuit was inaccurate. This is also not explained by telepathy.

Characteristics of children communicators

The spirits of young children recently deceased had clearer memories of early childhood than spirits who had died many years before. This was not explainable by telepathy because the the sitters often had clear memories of the spirit's early childhood.

Spirits of young children recently deceased tended to communicate more clearly than adults recently deceased. This is not explained by telepathy.

Spirits of individuals who died in childhood express themselves as though they had grown during the intervening time. This occurred even when they were still thought of as young children by the sitters.
Other Evidence Not Consistent With Telepathy...
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/04/near-death-experiences-and-afterlife.html
Dr. Alvarado said:

For many workers in the field, survival research is not a main interest. To some extent this is academics as usual. People specialize in some areas and develop interests due to personality traits, life experiences, training, and employment opportunities, and parapsychology is no exception. Then there are concerns such as getting tenure and the belief that the area has many methodological difficulties. However, I believe that in some cases there is more than this. In some circles it is more “respectable” to conduct ESP experiments than working with survival-related phenomena such as apparitions or mediumship. I still remember how the director of a parapsychology unit within an university, wanting to keep a conservative image, discouraged students from pursuing topics such as apparitions for dissertation research.
When deciding the best explanation for a phenomenon, the beliefs of experiencers must be considered. They are there on the spot. There is no one more qualified to asses their experiences than they are. NDErs consistently say their experiences are real and that is a strong argument in favor of the reality of their experiences. As shown above, none of the known causes of hallucinations or ESP can explain NDEs.

The opinions of non-scientist experts should also be given due weight. The expertise of mediums is shown above in the links to different forms of mediumship. Mediums live with afterlife phenomena every day. They know all the fine details that do not get published in books and parapsychological studies. Many mediums also experience other forms of ESP and they can tell the difference between spirit communication and ESP. Mediums say they perceive and communicate with spirits. They are the foremost experts in spirit communication and there are no better qualified experts on ESP and survival of consciousness.
"Mediums live with afterlife phenomena every day. They know all the fine details that do not get published in books and parapsychological studies. Many mediums also experience other forms of ESP and they can tell the difference between spirit communication and ESP. Mediums say they perceive and communicate with spirits. They are the foremost experts in spirit communication and there are no better qualified experts on ESP and survival of consciousness."

From my own experiences taking classes as in mediumship:
Once I was in a mediumship class when I felt the presence of a spirit who I knew from previous readings and who now wanted me to give a message to someone in the room. I said to the spirit mentally, "I don't want to give the message now" and I explained my reasons, I was a new student and didn't want to speak out of turn. I didn't say anything about this aloud. A few seconds later a more advanced student said that he sensed the same spirit and gave the message. Mediums routinely experience spirits as people with initiative and purpose capable of solving problems.
Mediums routinely experience spirits not as flat files of information but as people with initiative and purpose capable of solving problems.
Once I attended a trance workshop given by a visiting medium at my Spiritualist church. We didn't have any trance mediums at our church so none of us did this regularly. During the workshop many people I knew from my church and from mediumship class participated. I was a new student at the time so I was only allowed to observe. These people, who I knew well, each took a turn, and after about twenty or thirty seconds of meditation, (we didn't have to dim the lights) would go into a light trance. They were conscious but a spirit would speak through them at the same time. The spirits told us about who they were in life and what they were doing in the spirit world. Some of the spirits were just as amazed that they could speak through a living person as I was to hear them. It seemed to me that there was a personality there and not just information being accessed. Since I knew the people in the workshop I could tell they not making it up consciously or unconsciously and they were not hypnotized.
 
Last edited:
This is a new interview with Ed May that has one very odd section where he claims to have debunked an experiment in which Ingo Swann affected a magnetometer (12:01 min). When questioned about this, he does some quick backpeddling. It sounded as if he was debunking the famous experiment which has been used by Hal Puthoff as an example of possible PK. But when asked more questions, he then claims that he didn't mean that experiment with that particular magmetometer, because that magnetometer was shielded, and he only debunked experiments with a unshielded device.

Maybe Ed is just a BSer and he was making stuff up and got caught. Or maybe there were problems with the famous experiment. Or perhaps there were no problems with the famous experiment, but he wants people to suspect that there is because he doesn't believe in macro-PK.

 
Top