Cherylee Black, Can NDEs Lead to Psychokinesis? |548|

Alex

Administrator
Cherylee Black, Can NDEs Lead to Psychokinesis? |548|
by Alex Tsakiris | Apr 12 | Consciousness Research
Share
Tweet

Cherylee Black is a trained scientist, NDE experiencer and laboratory tested for her ability to move stuff with her mind.
skeptiko-548-Cherylee-Black-300x300.jpg
 
A good discussion ( as usual ), but here we go again.

Let's face it — The "I wanna believe." factor goes both ways, and both sides have "really creative ways of spinning it" to their advantage. I wasn't able to find any videos corroborating Cheylee's claims, but apart from that, how hard would it have been to have Cherylee demonstrate the pinwheel for us on the YouTube video of the interview? Sure, you would still get people claiming it was staged, but at least it would be something. If anyone else can find links, please post them up.

Another Egely Wheel video.

On the comment, "Even if it were true I still wouldn't believe it." Perhaps there's a misinterpretation going on there. Perhaps what was really being said is the same thing I often say, which is that the phenomena itself may be real ( true ), but the explanation people assign to it, isn't accurate. For example, if we assume that alien craft ( UFOs ) are a reality, does that mean they are transports from Hell ( like some people believe ), and that by extension, Hell must exist, and by extension Heaven must exist, and by extension afterlives must exist? — No.

So sure — the phenomena might be real in some some number of cases, but are the explanations that people assign to them the real causes? On the issue of Gods versus Luciferianism, that's probably the epitome of a religious interpretation. It's fine to consider it from a symbolic point of view, but there's lots of issues once you start taking it literally.
 
Last edited:
So sure — the phenomena might be real in some some number of cases, but are the explanations that people assign to them based on their belief systems the real causes? On the issue of Gods versus Luciferianism, that's probably the epitome of a religious interpretation. It fine to consider it from a symbolic point of view, but there's lots of issues once you start taking it literally.
Indeed, psychokinesis alone wouldn't imply/necessitate anything spiritual - I mean, it very well could be, but more likely a mechanical force we don't understand. I.e: What if "The Force" is just the mind using Quantum Entanglement to manipulate substance with which it's physically Quantum Entangled? At least, that's what's going through my mind when I hear her talking about it. I mean, assuming her power is real... if it were a spiritual thing I'd assume she would she use spiritual language about it.
Whereas, when the NDE'ers talk about the other place/realm most of them went to, it sounds like a legit different place than anything we would associate with our reality.
 
I thoroughly enjoyed this interview. It's always refreshing to hear the tone in the voice of a NDE'er when you they get asked about the Atheists or the Transhumanists. Alex quoted the monk saying "they're confused", but Cherylee explains that idea with the tone in her voice.
Then, to hit on the Moral Imperative, Cherylee's tone did the same thing. When she said they're tying to make themselves The Borg, and also when she talked about "how do you get back from that...", she had compassion in her voice. But if you listen closely, you notice she wasn't worried about them or their souls. And not even a hint of evangelization. Doesn't this tell us something about moral imperative?

And total mic-drop when she explained that you can't have Art without Love.
 
Last edited:
I thoroughly enjoyed this interview. It's always refreshing to hear the tone in the voice of a NDE'er when you they get asked about the Atheists or the Transhumanists. Alex quoted the monk saying "they're confused", but Cherylee explains that idea with the tone in her voice.
Then, to hit on the Moral Imperative, Cherylee's tone did the same thing. When she said they're tying to make themselves The Borg, and also when she talked about "how do you get back from that...", she had compassion in her voice. But if you listen closely, you notice she wasn't worried about them or their souls. And not even a hint of evangelization. Doesn't this tell us something about moral imperative?

And total mic-drop when she explained that you can't have Art without Love.

nice.

what does it tell you about the moral imperative?
 
nice.

what does it tell you about the moral imperative?

Perhaps the imperative is individualistic. I.e. Maybe Hitler needs to reincarnate as a porn shop janitor in west Hollywood in order to burn away specific karma or ego.

Cherylee's lack of concern for the damage people are doing tells me she perceives the damage as temporal.

Think about when you're trying to unspool string or an extension cord and you get a tangle... You know you should pause and slow down to methodically retrace the mistake and unweave it, you instead get impatient give it little yank.. Then when you see that the yank tightened up a knot, you decide to go full force and use sheer strength to pull the knot out even though you know full well that it won't happen...
Cherylee talked about the Transhumanists the same way a bystander observes someone making-worse a tangled/knotted string or cord. It's nothing life threatening, and whatever They tangle up They're gonna have to untangle, and it's gonna require pause and slowing down to methodically retrace the mistake and unweave it, regardless how much stomping and thrashing they do.
 
thx. fav line:

Ancient and aboriginal cultures have spent as much time and energy developing techniques of inducing such states as we do trying develop ways of suppressing them
Maybe that's why some aboriginal cultures are still in the stone age ( except for the scraps they get from modern society ).
 
I checked-out some other Egely Wheel videos and it looks to me like the movement is simply due to air convection moving a small very low-friction wheel with vanes that catch the air like a mini-windmill. This device could work via the same principle even under glass. I couldn't find any examples of such a wheel used in an experiment where it's inside a vacuum.
 
I had a TK experience once. I've written about it on Psiencequest before, but I'll talk about it again.

Context. I had bought one of Sean McNamara's books on the subject. This was 5 years ago actually now I think about it. Was a period of change and upheaval in my life, new beginnings and fresh energy.

I bent a paperclip and stuck it into a rubber (eraser for North Americans ;) ). On top of the paper clip that was bent into a straight shape, I placed a small, folded piece of paper onto the tip. I made sure it was stable and wouldn't fall off after a while, and then, placed a glass over all of it, carefully to not disturb the paper and making it fall.

I sat for the day trying to move it with my mind. Would sometimes get strange sensations in my body or the feeling that "something" was going to happen, quite similar to when in dreams you realise you can fly and you are confused to whether it is real life or not, and are disappointed on waking up lol! However, that could be psychosomatic. But tried the whole day and nothing happened.

I told my mate (who is open minded) to give it a go with me at the same time, and we tried, in silence for about 15/20 mins. Got the strange feelings again. Felt like the addition of someone else that was open minded "helped", but nothing happened.

As it was nearly bed time (I was living with them at the time), I got up from where I was sitting and said a bunch of things to my friend and then, rather sarcastically, said good night to the piece of paper.

I think time stopped when my friend and I watched the piece of paper spin, quite rapidly and with a few revolutions, on-top of the paper clip.

We both looked at each with amazement and quickly tried to figure out what caused that. We tried moving, shaking and banging on the table that the glass and paper clip was on; nothing. We tried blowing and using our hands to make the thing move; nothing.

To this day, I have no idea what caused that and how it happened. It was also very interesting that the thing moved as soon as I said I'm leaving and good night!

Pretty damn impressive coincidence if you ask me!

Anyone have any ideas? What could occams-razor come up with to explain this?
 
Indeed, psychokinesis alone wouldn't imply/necessitate anything spiritual - I mean, it very well could be, but more likely a mechanical force we don't understand. I.e: What if "The Force" is just the mind using Quantum Entanglement to manipulate substance with which it's physically Quantum Entangled? At least, that's what's going through my mind when I hear her talking about it. I mean, assuming her power is real... if it were a spiritual thing I'd assume she would she use spiritual language about it.
Whereas, when the NDE'ers talk about the other place/realm most of them went to, it sounds like a legit different place than anything we would associate with our reality.
I have to point out that mystical Hinduism & Tibetan Buddhism have massive things to say about the siddhis. The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali are quite specific in the methods & energy states re: to gain the siddhis. A very helpful corollary to the Yoga Sutras are the 5 Kleshas or poisons/afflictions that obscure our true natures. To begin w/ the Kleshas is the Avidya - ignorance. This primary misconception of reality, such as taking temporary things as permanent, leads in large part to all the others, like Asmita - I-am-ness/the self-image/ego. When you fully understand & deal w/ the Kleshas, then your true nature is clearly revealed. When you have removed the afflictions, your oneness w/ All gives you access to all the powers.
This is the story of the PK Man, who came to his powers thru a different route: a very real connection to a higher dimensional order of existence.
 
I checked-out some other Egely Wheel videos and it looks to me like the movement is simply due to air convection moving a small very low-friction wheel with vanes that catch the air like a mini-windmill. This device could work via the same principle even under glass. I couldn't find any examples of such a wheel used in an experiment where it's inside a vacuum.
This is one of those methods of proving a siddhi that will always have flaws to be pointed out. You can't eliminate every possible confounding influence, like the observer effect.
I wish I'd written down the video link for a group that was experimenting w/ Egely Wheels. Only one man was having any results, but he had his wheel stirring even when he was in a hallway adjacent to the room w/ the table holding the participants' wheels under glass. I feel like it would never be enough of an astounding demonstration for some ppl even if they were around for Ted Owens' UFOs or his weather manipulations.
 
Perhaps the imperative is individualistic. I.e. Maybe Hitler needs to reincarnate as a porn shop janitor in west Hollywood in order to burn away specific karma or ego.

Cherylee's lack of concern for the damage people are doing tells me she perceives the damage as temporal.

Think about when you're trying to unspool string or an extension cord and you get a tangle... You know you should pause and slow down to methodically retrace the mistake and unweave it, you instead get impatient give it little yank.. Then when you see that the yank tightened up a knot, you decide to go full force and use sheer strength to pull the knot out even though you know full well that it won't happen...
Cherylee talked about the Transhumanists the same way a bystander observes someone making-worse a tangled/knotted string or cord. It's nothing life threatening, and whatever They tangle up They're gonna have to untangle, and it's gonna require pause and slowing down to methodically retrace the mistake and unweave it, regardless how much stomping and thrashing they do.

That's a good analogy.

Then again, it's kind of interesting that you're blowing right past the "could the moral imperative ever be more than a social construct" question? I mean, of course you're blowing past it because it's a stupid question... of course it's more... so how have we built and sustained a scientific / philosophical klunker that denies it.
 
I had a TK experience once. I've written about it on Psiencequest before, but I'll talk about it again.

Context. I had bought one of Sean McNamara's books on the subject. This was 5 years ago actually now I think about it. Was a period of change and upheaval in my life, new beginnings and fresh energy.

I bent a paperclip and stuck it into a rubber (eraser for North Americans ;) ). On top of the paper clip that was bent into a straight shape, I placed a small, folded piece of paper onto the tip. I made sure it was stable and wouldn't fall off after a while, and then, placed a glass over all of it, carefully to not disturb the paper and making it fall.

I sat for the day trying to move it with my mind. Would sometimes get strange sensations in my body or the feeling that "something" was going to happen, quite similar to when in dreams you realise you can fly and you are confused to whether it is real life or not, and are disappointed on waking up lol! However, that could be psychosomatic. But tried the whole day and nothing happened.

I told my mate (who is open minded) to give it a go with me at the same time, and we tried, in silence for about 15/20 mins. Got the strange feelings again. Felt like the addition of someone else that was open minded "helped", but nothing happened.

As it was nearly bed time (I was living with them at the time), I got up from where I was sitting and said a bunch of things to my friend and then, rather sarcastically, said good night to the piece of paper.

I think time stopped when my friend and I watched the piece of paper spin, quite rapidly and with a few revolutions, on-top of the paper clip.

We both looked at each with amazement and quickly tried to figure out what caused that. We tried moving, shaking and banging on the table that the glass and paper clip was on; nothing. We tried blowing and using our hands to make the thing move; nothing.

To this day, I have no idea what caused that and how it happened. It was also very interesting that the thing moved as soon as I said I'm leaving and good night!

Pretty damn impressive coincidence if you ask me!

Anyone have any ideas? What could occams-razor come up with to explain this?
Fascinating tale! Loved it. I was a dedicated Falun Dafa practitioner while living in Texas. I was instructed in Master Li's standing & sitting exercises & practiced w/ young graduate students in physics for months early mornings in a public park. They scattered of course, most returning to China.
So I continued by myself, but yearned for fellow practitioners.
I finally decided to seek someone to practice w/ me, so I contacted the local Unitarian/Universalist Church that I had previously visited off & on, & asked if I could give a presentation on Falun Dafa. They accented.
On a Sunday morning, I went up to the podium & introduced myself. As I was about to launch into my speech, a plant of small size in a large pot to my left lined up along the wall w/ many others fell over & broke loudly! I was astounded as everyone else. Someone quickly came forward & removed the mess as I watched, but I didn't see anything like wires or springs that a practical joker could have placed for some fun. As the mess cleaner left, I turned to the congregation & shrugged.
To my surprise, a woman called quite loudly from the back of the audience, "It was the energy, Mr. Collie, it was the energy!" I made my speech & not one person contacted me, but I was happy to have a freaky experience to relate. Years later, oddly enough, I read in one of Li's books that it was strictly forbidden to give public talks about Falun Dafa w/o permission. I guess I hadn't upset any spirit, but maybe one tried to help me by knocking over a pot to get more devotees!
 
That's a good analogy.

Then again, it's kind of interesting that you're blowing right past the "could the moral imperative ever be more than a social construct" question? I mean, of course you're blowing past it because it's a stupid question... of course it's more... so how have we built and sustained a scientific / philosophical klunker that denies it.

Ahh.. To the Nitty Gritty!

I'd argue that if the moral imperative is individualistic, then the collective moral imperative might be a social construct.

Example: Maybe Hitler individualistically needed to be Hitler so that his soul could find the bottom of it's depths in his next reincarnation as a porn shop janitor in West Hollywood.

Simplest common argument for this is that if there were no evil there would be no good, and we're here to learn about being good.

In my recent ponderings I've concluded that this is why conservatives never have the moral high ground: Because their morals change as often as the wind - whereas the radicals are simply radical and consistent. Could be argued that the radicals have moral high ground simply on the basis that they're consistent (AKA Fair).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kim
When she said they're tying to make themselves The Borg, and also when she talked about "how do you get back from that...", she had compassion in her voice.
How does one get back from being a Borg? Ask The Picard. I think it has something to do with processing the Borg signal through the transport pattern buffer.
And total mic-drop when she explained that you can't have Art without Love.
Art without love? Maybe not for those people who don't think so. It all depends on your philosophy of art. I would contend that everything is art. Therefore because not everything is love, there must be some portion of art that is outside the bounds of love. Perhaps the art of war or vengeance might fall into that category?
 
Last edited:
I'd argue that if the moral imperative is individualistic, then the collective moral imperative might be a social construct.

Okay — I'm jumping in on this one. First we need some sort of clear definition as to what we mean by "The Moral Imperative". Are we going with the Kantian Moral Philosophy – the idea that it's part of his set of categorical imperatives? If so, then we're taking the view that morality is bounded by Kant's view of pure reason — the idea that the moral principle in question is a law of nature and therefore universal. Then, if we can will ourselves to act in accordance with that law, we can be said to be acting morally. Or are we looking at it as some other concept? If so, what exactly?
 
Last edited:
I checked-out some other Egely Wheel videos and it looks to me like the movement is simply due to air convection moving a small very low-friction wheel with vanes that catch the air like a mini-windmill. This device could work via the same principle even under glass. I couldn't find any examples of such a wheel used in an experiment where it's inside a vacuum.


Not an Egely wheel, but a pinwheel in a vaccumn experiment at about 1:25:12

 
Back
Top