Marisa Ryan, Certified Psychic Medium Tackles Big Picture Questions |398|

#61
This is a very interesting reply. You seem to resonate with the ideas of Plato and Stuart Hameroff, both of which suggest the same thing. That there are shadows of things, i.e. Plato's Theory of Forms, and that certain constructs are perhaps inherent to spacetime, suggesting idealism. You will be pleased to know that an intriguing surprisingly mainstream recently developed theory of consciousness argues for essentially exactly what you are saying: consciousness can be explained as an entropic force that somehow separated from universal consciousness, meaning that we are all multiple personalities of a universal host. A very interesting idea, no doubt:https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/18618-theory-multiple-personality-disorder
Yes, I know. It mentions Bernardo Kastrup, whose philosophy is a form of Idealism. His website is here. There are lots of links there to various of his papers in Scientific American and elsewhere, as well as to his books. You'll also find many of his videos on YouTube. I've been following his ideas for years, as many long-time members here will already know. He's also been interviewed on Skeptiko more than once, most recently here.
 
#62
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an abstract example. I just question whether mediums are in actual conversation with the dead, or if they are exhibiting characteristics of psi that have been demonstrated before, such as telepathy and psychokinesis.
Well what I mean is that if a superpsi person had access to everything that anyone knows about a dead individual, it just wouldn't be possible to 'prove' that they contacted that person or not. I wanted you to suggest a scenario that could ever prove that a medium was contacting the dead.

Did you take my point that all science has to have a pragmatic component to get anywhere - other wise nothing can ever be established?

David
 
#64
Alex, you asked for us to pop in. Hey, it's been a while since I've been on the forum. I've still been listening this whole time still (this isn't about me though I've heard all the shows from when I first caught up with the first 70 or so shows, and then onward to today).

Your show has morphed a few times in this journey. It's been really interesrting to see the twists and turns. My gut instinct says longer shows are better. I've seen you extend yourself into a few longer ones in the last year. At about the 1 hour mark everyone's guard is down enough for the real conversation to start. I'd have loved to hear this one for another hour or two. I loved the experiences the guest had and would have liked to hear the two of you explore a few other questions that might have twisted and turned to unexpected places. I know youe style is to drill down, unpack, and not speculate so much so - I get it! But hey, it was a great show anyway - informative and relaxed.

Keep it up Alex! I'm always excited when I see another episode has emerged "from the hopper".
 
#65
Well what I mean is that if a superpsi person had access to everything that anyone knows about a dead individual, it just wouldn't be possible to 'prove' that they contacted that person or not. I wanted you to suggest a scenario that could ever prove that a medium was contacting the dead.

Did you take my point that all science has to have a pragmatic component to get anywhere - other wise nothing can ever be established?

David
I see your point. It is certainly true that a certain level of pragmatism is necessary. I think Alex makes a good point, too, if the medium claims that they are getting information from a dead person and this has been independently verified and controlled for, the medium really would have no reason to lie about how they are getting their information, so maybe we should take their word for it, since it seems hard to prove either way.
 
#66
I think part of the problem with obscure research is that it's notoriously hard to conduct, yet alone, to convince skeptics. The term skepticism, as it was used by Diagones, has been completely bastardized to debunking exercises. Science was never meant to be a debunking exercise, but to explore possible explanations for a given phenomenon, and in order for the explanation to be true, it must be able to explain all data. If the researcher does not account for opposing data, then they cannot be considered to provide a credible explanation.

The thing that makes afterlife research such a difficult field of study is the prevailing dogma of scientism has prevented researchers from even looking seriously as data. "It can't be true because it contradicts what we know," is a tired argument that has no bearing on reality. The fact is: consensus is wrong almost all the time, and as Born said: "science progresses one death at a time."
 
#67
I liked it also. Alex touched upon something I was thinking throughout the whole show when he said something along the lines of contradictory information and/or differing perspectives from all the information we get from different spiritual sources.

The last several months I’ve been big into researching astral experiences and experiencers. From what I can tell (with regards to the “prolific and published” astral travelers is that that they tend to talk about and testify to this “multidimensionality of the self. William Buhlman says time and time again in his lectures, “WE. ARE. MULTIDIMENSIONAL. BEINGS.” Jurgen Ziewes Great book is called “Multi-Dimensional man.” In it, he describes meeting his reincarnated Father while he was OOB who had apparently reincarnated as a Russian boy. And he also stated that his late mother told him during another experience that (paraphrasing) “though Jurgens father had reincarnated, she could still visit him in this other realm regularly and meet with him, and not as the Russian boy, but as a seperate “person” in this realm.” The handful of other astral travelers which I’ve researched would agree. But I’m not saying that I think she’s all wrong. The question “are we singular or multi-dimensional” might be as silly as the question, “what sort of cheese is the moon made out of?” Both arguments could be wrong and right, in ways that we can’t understand.

That said, I think that credible astral-travelers are our best source on these things. I’d rather listen to somebody speak about China if they were actually going to China regularly than listen to somebody who talks to somebody from China on the phone occasionally. Marisa’s main contention against multi-dimensionality seemed to be, “I don’t think it’s possible, it doesn’t make sense to me, I wouldn’t like it.” I don’t find that compelling at all. She did say that she had some OBE experience herself. I’d be interested to hear her speak of her experiences. We also don’t know for sure that astral travelers visit the same realms as discarnate folk, but I’d say that that certainly seems to be roughly the case. None of this is to cast doubt on mediums or the wonderful things they do. I’m just speaking on one specific point that I find interesting. And mediums are just as valuable, any more valuable, with regards to other purposes.

So again, the question of multidimensionality (as we frame it) may be nonsensical and not in accord with reality, just as the moon which actually isn’t made out of cheese at all. But that said, I find all the data we have supporting multidimensionality far more compelling than that coming from the “singular crowd.” I also consider the fact that the “singular” folk may simply have not had a direct experience of multidimensionality, and therefore conclude (wrongfully) that there is no multi-dimensionality. But, it’s also possible that those who experience multi-dimensionality are confused themselves, and that it is they who are wrong.
The multidimensionality aspect may lie with our use of language, linear thinking process and time itself. Crossing over there are abundant reports our time space dimension isnt applicable. Without a time component, everything apparently happens in parallel rather then sequentially. There are levels of frequency so to speak and possibly a dimensionless experience for your average discorporated astral occupant. That is a reality minus time and space.
 
#68
Unfortunately, however, skeptics for some reason are worshipped as gods in today's world. Very rarely, do I ever see anyone arguing the skeptics on their own skepticism; very sad the state that public education is in: turning us all into little more than biological androids. That being said, case in point is an author like Sam Harris. Now I find many of Harris's views interesting, and I watched a video where he voiced his belief that free will doesn't exist. His claim was that even if we do have a soul, in no way can it be considered free because all actions are proceeded by prior events, and the crux of his claim is that using neural imagery, we can detect that your brain has thought before you are able to. While this is no doubt interesting and suggests that the sub-conscious is involved in the choice, perhaps more than we typically consider, the electrical signal that arises from your brain cannot be considered as a choice because there are no options present. Choice can only be possible when there are options. The options do not arise until your brain recognizes in that moment that you have a choice.

He then goes on to make an argument asking the audience to think of a city. He asks them why they thought of the city they did, and gave the example of Tokyo because you may have had Japanese food the night before, but why didn't you think of a different city? It's an interesting point, but I think he misses the mark. You could have completely ignored him asking you to think of something different, and perhaps thought of something else instead. This would demonstrate that even though the impulse may have arisen before you are consciously aware, your brain can still recognize that you have input or data from which you can make a decision. If anything, Harris's argument is that we cannot clearly articulate what it means to have a will in the first place, which is a far different argument than we don't have any will at all- but you won't find anyone to challenge him on his logic.

This is the reason why I no longer take materialism seriously because people like Dan Denett try to explain away consciousness by saying that it's an illusion, and no one is really conscious, but fails to provide a mechanism of how this would be. He offers up a bunch of theoretical jargon and nothing more. It would be like having a magic show and telling people that you can perform this amazing trick, but can't show them it because you don't know how it works. It's intellectually lazy at best, yet people like him always get the limelight.
 
#69
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by an abstract example. I just question whether mediums are in actual conversation with the dead, or if they are exhibiting characteristics of psi that have been demonstrated before, such as telepathy and psychokinesis. It appears that even though the effect is rather weak in the general population, certain people seem to be adept to it, such as Ingo Swann. One of the documents of Stargate, for instance, is the Navajo Necklace, where he accurately describes the time period in which it was forged and even the location without knowing anything about what was contained in the envelope. Again, I'm not saying that conjuring spirits is not what is happening. I would just like to see something beyond known capabilities of psi that would assume spirit contact, a manifestation of fingerprints or legit photographs of apparitions would constitute such evidence.
Truthseeker, I discovered Julie Beischal on this podcast. Shes the Ph.D researcher Alex interviewed multiple times. She sticks to very specific things that mediums can do. Very well worth a listen. When I conducted my own personal research using a couple of her mediums, along with more mundane inquiry. I got the impression, they're mostly just regular people born with a greater sensitivity to this higher frequency. For the most part this gift imparts no special transcendent knowing. By the way this goes for discarnate beings doing the communication. For the most part, they may also have a sort of limited understanding determined by their level of self realization.
 
#71
This is the reason why I no longer take materialism seriously because people like Dan Denett try to explain away consciousness by saying that it's an illusion, and no one is really conscious, but fails to provide a mechanism of how this would be. He offers up a bunch of theoretical jargon and nothing more. It would be like having a magic show and telling people that you can perform this amazing trick, but can't show them it because you don't know how it works. It's intellectually lazy at best, yet people like him always get the limelight.
I don't know if you've watched the video below, but to my mind it illustrates perfectly Dan Dennett playing with theoretical jargon that doesn't actually mean much or even make much sense. He speaks of Darwinian evolution having "designed" us to appreciate the world as we seem to, even though "design" as an idea is antithetical to Darwinism; I was surprised that no one challenged him on that.

It's plain to me that a point Justin Brierly makes quite late in the interview, that their respective views might be shaped by their prior leanings, is relevant. Dennett wants the world to have arisen from the bottom up, whereas people like Ward want it to have arisen top-down; Dennett wants "consciousness" (I use the quotes because he thinks it's a kind of illusion) to have emerged, and Ward wants to think it always existed and is ontologically prior and fundamental, and for me this is the key to the whole argument.

Can consciousness emerge from non-conscious matter? Dennett insists it can and does, and rather oleaginously enlists the aid of the dominance of the materialistic worldview to do that: "who are you miserable little worms to challenge the whole corpus of materialistic science?" seems to be the unspoken subtext of his message.

As I see things, it's all to do with literalism: materialists see the world as being exactly what it appears to the senses to be, and the brain as literally what generates consciousness. People like Bernardo Kastrup see the brain as what the process of consciousness in humans happens to appear to the senses to be, and of course there will naturally be a correlation between its appearance and the process. Go in Dennett's direction and you have to explain the Hard Problem; go Kastrup's way and there is no Hard Problem. I think Dennett might realise this, which may be why he fabricates his own hand-waving dismissal of the problem. Any way, for what it's worth, here's the video:


Incidentally, if you read the comments about the video on YouTube, you'll see how the vein of condescension runs through many of them; most of the commenters are literalists, and there's nothing anyone can do to make them at least consider the alternate view: that what they perceive may not be literally what the world is like.
 
#72
shared w/ me on FB:

Alex, the psychic medium you interviewed who said we live parallel lives is Julia Assante I believe. As for a soul’s ability to occupy multiple bodies, Dr. Michael Newton’s book “Journey of Souls” deals with that. According to Newton’s findings our earthly bodies only occupy something like 20% of our soul energy, with the other 80% on the other side. According to this theory the only bodies that can contain the full 100% of soul energy on earth would be the likes of Christ or the Buddha.
 
#73
I think if you accept that 'out there' people see the whole timeline in one go, it is hard to say exactly why people couldn't incarnate into two bodies at once!

I had a brief email discussion with Imants Baruss, who is working on possible ways to explain all this using more than one time axis (something I speculated about on here several times!). He did an interview with Jeffrey Mishlove, and has an article in £Edge Science 35.

Without an extra time dimension, I don't think timelessness can make sense. The problem is that most verbs, like "hope", "develop", learn", etc seem to imply an implicit before and after state. I think if you are 'out there', those two times are coordinates in T2, not our T1.

However, Edge Science 35 faults when you try to download it!

David
 
Last edited:
#74
Hello Everyone and Thank you Alex for the fun interview.
I definitely dont have all the answers and I am still learning and experiencing as a soul having a human experience. As a Soul in this Human body I remain Skeptic in all aspect of my Human life. One thing I know for sure because I trust my guides is that we have One Soul having one Singular Existing experience at a time. Each time we have a Singular Existing experience the location may be different each time. Not all Reincarnations are on Earth. The Souls Home is one place where we return after each Singular Existing experience. (note: I am not saying Human. ) The purpose of each experience is to learn, grow and evolve as well as just...Experience. A soul cannot have Multiple Singular Existing Experiences Simultaneously. (Our Soul cannot inhabit more than one body at the same time). I have had many lives on other planets as most of you have also. Hoping all of you are making the most out of this Amazing opportunity to have a Human Experience and I look forward to seeing you all back home!
Hi Marisa, Thank you for your time. Do you know of, or have heard of Gina Lake? Just curious. Gina is also a medium but has become over time a channeler of ascended masters. She relates that she initially encountered unhelpful entities that took pleasure in harassing her. It was only years later after she cut herself off from all transcendent communication. She was gently contacted by higher beings. Have you ever encountered bothersome spirits? Do your guides keep your sensitivity in a narrow focus? Is all your communication confined now to what your guides direct you to?
 
#75
Unfortunately, however, skeptics for some reason are worshipped as gods in today's world. Very rarely, do I ever see anyone arguing the skeptics on their own skepticism; very sad the state that public education is in: turning us all into little more than biological androids.

This is the reason why I no longer take materialism seriously because people like Dan Denett try to explain away consciousness by saying that it's an illusion, and no one is really conscious, but fails to provide a mechanism of how this would be. ...He offers up a bunch of theoretical jargon and nothing more. It would be like having a magic show and telling people that you can perform this amazing trick, but can't show them it because you don't know how it works. It's intellectually lazy at best, yet people like him always get the limelight.
TS, they are not skeptics. They are fakers which I call social skeptics. They are pretend science mouthpieces, not smart enough to know that they are being manipulated into promoting a very insistent and insidious religion.

What is Social Skepticism

Their low standards have slowly crept into academic science as well. From my days heading a research lab and several investigation firms - there are certain elements which qualify a thought construct as a scientific hypothesis. And yes, avoiding mechanism and predictive strength, is a key sign that pseudoscience is at play. What I found over the years to be ineffective and pretend, versus effective science:

The Elements of Hypothesis

Academic Study Pseudoscience
TES :)
 
#76
I don't know if you've watched the video below, but to my mind it illustrates perfectly Dan Dennett playing with theoretical jargon that doesn't actually mean much or even make much sense. He speaks of Darwinian evolution having "designed" us to appreciate the world as we seem to, even though "design" as an idea is antithetical to Darwinism; I was surprised that no one challenged him on that.

It's plain to me that a point Justin Brierly makes quite late in the interview, that their respective views might be shaped by their prior leanings, is relevant. Dennett wants the world to have arisen from the bottom up, whereas people like Ward want it to have arisen top-down; Dennett wants "consciousness" (I use the quotes because he thinks it's a kind of illusion) to have emerged, and Ward wants to think it always existed and is ontologically prior and fundamental, and for me this is the key to the whole argument.

Can consciousness emerge from non-conscious matter? Dennett insists it can and does, and rather oleaginously enlists the aid of the dominance of the materialistic worldview to do that: "who are you miserable little worms to challenge the whole corpus of materialistic science?" seems to be the unspoken subtext of his message.

As I see things, it's all to do with literalism: materialists see the world as being exactly what it appears to the senses to be, and the brain as literally what generates consciousness. People like Bernardo Kastrup see the brain as what the process of consciousness in humans happens to appear to the senses to be, and of course there will naturally be a correlation between its appearance and the process. Go in Dennett's direction and you have to explain the Hard Problem; go Kastrup's way and there is no Hard Problem. I think Dennett might realise this, which may be why he fabricates his own hand-waving dismissal of the problem. Any way, for what it's worth, here's the video:


Incidentally, if you read the comments about the video on YouTube, you'll see how the vein of condescension runs through many of them; most of the commenters are literalists, and there's nothing anyone can do to make them at least consider the alternate view: that what they perceive may not be literally what the world is like.
It's odd that this should be the case, as we know that the world we see is not actually what is there, and the concept of solidity is entirely an illusion, suggested by the Planck length. Matter only appears to be solid because of how close particles appear in superposition but is in fact not. This alone would suggest to me that reality is not entirely physical, though it appears to be.
 
#77
It's odd that this should be the case, as we know that the world we see is not actually what is there, and the concept of solidity is entirely an illusion, suggested by the Planck length. Matter only appears to be solid because of how close particles appear in superposition but is in fact not. This alone would suggest to me that reality is not entirely physical, though it appears to be.
I don't know how one could continue arguing for materialism after all that we have discovered with particle physics.
 
#78
I think if you accept that 'out there' people see the whole timeline in one go, it is hard to say exactly why people couldn't incarnate into two bodies at once!

I had a brief email discussion with Imants Baruss, who is working on possible ways to explain all this using more than one time axis (something I speculated about on here several times!). He did an interview with Jeffrey Mishlove, and has an article in £Edge Science 35.

Without an extra time dimension, I don't think timelessness can make sense. The problem is that most verbs, like "hope", "develop", learn", etc seem to imply an implicit before and after state. I think if you are 'out there', those two times are coordinates in T2, not our T1.

However, Edge Science 35 faults when you try to download it!

David
Have you checked out Dewey B. Larson's stuff here? Plenty on the site including whole books.
 
#79
From what I can see there are two indicators of deception. The first is that the entities have to get their pay off at some point, a bit like a narcissistic guru, they become abusive when they go for what they really want. The second (and this is more mysterious to me) is they can't tell the whole truth. Joe Fisher (The Siren Call of Hungry Ghosts) is an example, where the entity/entities new all this information about the people they claimed to be, but got some basic facts entirely wrong.

So how might we keep safe in engaging with this world?
Joe Fisher's book is a must read for anybody tempted to explore 'mediumship'. I do not suggest the book is a reason to avoid mediums or distrust them, but it is a powerful illustration of what happens when people become reliant on messages from 'the other side' - and invest authority in the fact of the source being discarnate.

An inducement to abdicate personal responsibility for assessing the veracity of a communication should set alarm bells off. But there is a difference between being intelligently sceptical and just plain disbelieving. Responsible agencies will not seek to assert authority, demand belief or provide endless streams of information. They seek a cooperative relationship based on mutual respect. Flattery and manipulation have no role.

In essence there are not different rules for engaging with incarnate agents and disincarnate agents. There is one rule for both - critical and self-responsible engagement - a kind of 'as you sow, so shall you reap' rule.

There are liars, deceivers and con artists in the spirit world - as in this one. You protect yourself from both by ensuring that you are not vulnerable to deception and flattery. If you are gullible, are impressed by status, think you are going to get privileged information or other have benefits bestowed upon you by a spirit its far safer to stay away until you are more mature. There are some folk who, by the content of their character, are more likely to be played for being a sucker than others. There are those who engage in self-deceit and fancy they are highly evolved souls to whom noble spirits (angels and archangels etc) will eagerly want to speak.

If you want to be safe be honest and patient and intelligently sceptical.
 
#80
nice. I'm starting to believe that materialistic science and what you're calling social skepticism can really only be understood as a social engineering project. I don't think this takes anything away from what you're saying regarding dogmatism and willful ignorance, but I just don't think that totally explains what's really going on especially when we look at all the Shadow government projects that presupposed the existence of an extended consciousness.
 
Top