The Mechanism of Mediumship
Posted by Julie Beischel at 20:44, 08 Mar 2012
This past weekend, Mark Boccuzzi (my husband and research partner) and I watched many of the speakers online from the Chopra Foundation's 2012 Symposium "Sages and Scientists: The Merging of a New Future." It was really interesting and sparked a lot of conversations in our living room!
Speakers included Stu Hameroff (who had the cajones to actually use the word "afterlife"), Candace Pert, Laura Liswood, Vandana Shiva (I can't even find the right words of awe to put in these parentheses!), Leonard Mlodinow, Henry Stapp, Elissa Epel (who really got me concerned about my telomeres), Rinaldo Brutoco, and the infamous Michael Shermer, founding publisher of Skeptic magazine.
While I expected only nonsense to come out of Shermer's mouth, he did make some logical points (that really almost anyone could have made): just because there is a word for a concept doesn't mean it exists in true reality (e.g., mind); saying we don't know how something works (e.g., local consciousness) doesn't prove an alternative explanation (e.g., nonlocal consciousness); and---the best and most obvious one---there is no such thing as the paranormal or the supernatural; there are only the normal, the natural, and the things we can't explain yet.
And while he lauded speakers who openly reported not knowing the answers to certain questions, he made blanket statements with no objective support about the impossibility of an afterlife: "Where does Aunt Millie's mind go when her brain dies? Nowhere!"
Now, I get it that if he changes his story, he will lose his job, his reputation, his income, and the drooling adoration of sheep-like followers everywhere, but it surprises me nonetheless when a grown, educated man gets up in front of a crowd and makes claims that clearly refute each other: (1) there are things we can't explain yet and (2) it is a fact that consciousness is created by the brain and cannot survive death. He can make claim #2 only by ignoring the numerous phenomena demonstrating that responsible scientists need to at least entertain its opposite (e.g., terminal lucidity, out of body experiences, near-death experiences, mediumship, etc.). I have other thoughts about his presentation, but I didn't transcribe it and I have a point I'd like to get to...
One of the main criticisms lobbed at mediumship, other psi phenomena, homeopathic remedies and the like (collectively called "X" here) is that because we can't define clear mechanisms for X, any laboratory demonstration of X must be the result of fraud, error, chance, statistical manipulation, etc.
For example, in a debate about the afterlife between Michael Shermer and Deepak Chopra from a few years ago, Shermer stated, "If the data shows [sic] that there is such a phenomena as psi that needs explaining (and I am not convinced that it does), then we still need a causal mechanism."
This demand is based in faulty logic. There are numerous "normal" Xs and we can't really explain how or why they happen but we all agree that they exist and are potentially worthy of study.
Some of these Xs are simple things we all have experience with like yawning, dreaming, and blushing and some are diseases and conditions we have at least heard of like multiple sclerosis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson's disease, eczema, psoriasis, glaucoma, fibromyalgia, and any disease with "idiopathic" in its title.
Because I was trained in the interdisciplinary field of pharmacology, the Xs that come to my mind are the many drugs on the market that work through mechanisms we don't fully understand. These include Botox and Fosamax; aspirin for most of its century of use (though now we know how it works); certain drugs that treat Parkinson's (pramipexole), cancer (procarbazine, targretin), tuberculosis (ethambutol), malaria (halofantrine); and epilepsy (levetiracetam); the antibiotics clofazimine and pentamidine; many psychotropic drugs (e.g., lithium); and the general anesthetics that keep patients unconscious during surgery.
So I guess if skeptics need to have surgery, they forego the general anesthesia since the doctors cannot define the precise mechanisms of action of those compounds and they are forced to conclude that any previous loss of consciousness demonstrated in other patients when exposed to these drugs was surely due to error, fraud, chance, or statistical manipulation.
Ouch!
At the Windbridge Institute for Applied Research in Human Potential, we are primarily concerned with the applications of X ("applied" is right in our name!) regardless of the causal mechanisms. The drugs listed above all work in treating their target conditions and our initial research shows that mediumship readings from credentialed mediums are helpful in the treatment of grief --- each irrespective of known mechanisms.
I think you can see the fallacy in claiming that the absence of an understood mechanism for X is reason to dismiss the possibility of X or the value in its investigation.
For some other things science can't explain thus providing evidence that thinking we understand everything is pompous and ignorant, see:
http://www.virginmedia.com/digital/features/10-things-science-cant-explain.php
http://www.newscientist.com/special/ten-mysteries-of-you
http://www.cracked.com/article_17679_7-awesome-acts-nature-that-science-cant-explain.html
http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science/strange-but-true/item/top_ten_science_cant_explain
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/photos/5-natural-events-that-science-cant-explain/a-sense-of-myst
PS - Mark and I are presenting a pre-conference workshop on Monday, April 9th, from 9am to 1pm titled "Survival of Consciousness: Implications and Applications" as part of the Toward a Science of Consciousness 2012 conference in Tucson, Arizona. We will be joined by Windbridge Certified Research Mediums (WCRMs) Dave Campbell and Joanne Gerber who will provide live demonstrations of anomalous information reception (AIR) and attendees will use intrumental transcommunication (ITC) software to attempt to obtain non-local information. The cost of the workshop, which can be purchased separate from the conference registration, is $50. For more information, visit www.afterlifescience.com
Bookmark/Search this post with
- Julie Beischel's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
21 January 2005
3 hours 26 min
Good post--thanks. (And thanks for that excellent list of links!) I frankly find Shermer's smug hypocrisy on all this increasingly hard to take, and have to wonder whether it's simply a matter of protecting his turf (and income)--or a genuine rational blind spot. (BTW I recall a panel a few years back when he was on a panel with Chopra and another skeptic; although I'm not a particular fan of Chopra, I found it telling when he pointed out--rightly--that he actually had more scientific training any either of the skeptics he was debating.)
14 April 2009
3 weeks 3 days
Julie Beischel,
:3
did nonsense come out of Leonard Mlodinow's maw?
and do you know if these talks are going to be available for public viewing?
---------
All that lives is holy, life delights in life.
--William Blake
12 April 2007
5 hours 38 min
Um, that would be cojones, with an 'o'.
Cajones with an 'a' means 'drawers', and unless Hameroff was arranging furniture in front of the audience, it doesn't sound too daring ;)
PS: It's interesting how for thousands of year mankind has known how to make cheese, yet the actual biochemical processes that take place during the fermentation of cheese weren't fully understood until fairly recently.
Likewise, many ancient cultures made use of different natural pharmacopoeia found in their local herbs and plants. Did they understood exactly why they worked? No; they only knew they did --probably through countless years of trial and error.
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie
27 May 2007
33 weeks 3 days
Julie has written a lovely article pointing out the crux of the matter.
Good scientific research is about reproducibility of the experiment with the same or very similar out comes. Skeptics of course, don't do research/ experiments. Their point of view is that since it ( X ) does not exist they won't test for its existence. Various institutes are doing great work to look into these phenomena that have traditionally been viewed as esoteric or occult. I wish them all the best.
However, there is one issue that is being missed completely in these debates which I find very odd indeed considering the alleged caliber of the participants.
Have a look at what Wikipedia says about the word "Esoteric" , especially in the section called methodology. One can clearly see the glaring contradiction is this field of research.
If one has a look in Wikipedia at the meaning of the word "occult" one may start to see what I am wanting to point out here.
If the word "occult" derives from the word "occultis" in latin which means - clandestine, hidden, secret. Thus in english we have occultism = "knowledge of the hidden" as opposed to "knowledge of the measurable" clearly referring to conventional science.
The contradiction and therefore problem I am pointing out is that it is by definition impossible for conventional science to study the occult. It is by definition, impossible for a research methodology or philosophy based in and on the 5 senses - based in/on the material world to pretend to be able to investigate or even just to know about stuff that is by definition beyond and not of this material world - thus being beyond measure, comprehension and knowledge of conventional science. There cannot be, by definition, an empirical study of occult phenomena - for the absolute reason that they are not humanly comprehensible by the 5 senses or any materialist theory, philosophy or methodology deriving therefrom.
No skeptic or alternative researcher has ever commented on or admitted to this glaring flaw in all of this research into the existence of PSI or the paranormal and any other hidden subject matter.
It seems to me that there is a lack of scientific professionalism, a dishonesty and some level of delusion in their thinking.
Any physicist should by definition know about this issue. My contact with physicists is limited but it seems to me that the continental/european researchers recognize this problem. Physicists from the Max Plank institute certainly recognize this problem and readily admit to it. Maybe this problem exists only within English language/American research circles.
Having made these points I should mention that I personally have been involved in a deep, systematic and ordered study of the hidden side of this world for over 25 years and have long ago resolved these issues to my personal satisfaction. Moreover, I completely support all forms of of research into the hidden side of this world no matter who does it. However, there is no point doing research if its based on false premises.
I look forward to reading more reasoned and balanced articles from Julie in the future.
16 August 2006
3 weeks 8 hours
The history of lucid dream research is interesting, particularly when lucid dreamers choose to become sleep/dream researchers and end up designing experiments that force others in the field to change their views.
(I'm currently re-reading Stephen LaBerge's Lucid Dreaming for the first time in many years.)
We end up (by the time the book was published, way back in 1985) with lucid dreamers connected to all kinds of monitoring equipment, signaling those monitoring them while lucidly dreaming, their activities within their lucid dreams frequently closely aligning with that which the equipment is recording.
So this area of study became much more expansive (official opinion held by quite a few had been that there was no such thing) after those who had personally experienced the phenomena entered the field.
Science does have a number of limiting foundational assumptions, some of which are acknowledged by philosophers of science, some not; the outside-in approach is in conflict with the inside-out approach, but what might result should mass beliefs -- and experience -- change such that all new scientists are personally aware of this, in the same way as LaBerge, a lucid dreamer from the age of 5, had an intimate knowledge of lucid dreams and dreaming?
Note how all kinds of once hidden or "occult" knowledge is no longer hidden at all -- one need not join a secret society to become aware of a great variety of formerly secret methods and techniques and practice them; all that's needed is an Internet connection and a device to access the Internet (even before the Internet arose no one needed to join, say, a group headed by a former pupil of George Gurdjieff to purchase any number of books that included detailed descriptions of some of "G's" most powerful exercises; an admirer of Jane Robert's Seth could purchase a paperback version of a book dictated by Seth, including any number of embedded exercises, long before mass adoption of the Internet).
It's entirely possible that the hidden (and not so hidden) foundational assumptions of the methods of science will be examined and, to an extent, discarded before too long, owing to the changed beliefs of people, period.
The result may be something quite different, something that most presently living scientists wouldn't call "science", but then things change and have always done so. Is the rate of change accelerating, today, owing to the impact of our electronic creations (or, per those who hold that outer physical reality symbolizes inner realities, owing to an acceleration of inner changes)?
Bill I.
27 May 2007
33 weeks 3 days
A really nice post Bill. A lot of deep thinking has gone in there.
The new science which is not called science except by secret societies and esoteric groups who refer to normal scientists as "learned ignoramuses", centers an the premise that ones needs to be ramped up a bit in order to participate in the new science.
The reason for this is that the mind of the 5 senses is not designed to work with or comprehend the occult worlds which exist in parallel with this one and which show themselves via various phenomena from time to time. Have a look at the uTube movies of Carl Sagan discussing the 4th dimension :
These 3 dimensions are the world of the sensorial mind ( the sum of the 5 senses our bodies give us). The academic models, theories and methodologies which result from the sensorial minds quest to learn about itself are fine here in these 3 dimensions but are unfortunately useless as tools to investigate these other occult parallel worlds of nature.
If one were to ramp oneself up to be able to live in what Buddhist call a state of "No Mind" which is not no mind at all but really a higher type of mind I call "Soul Mind". Really beyond sensorial mind as such - the sensorial mind can be surpassed or switched off in meditation very easily. One does not die when one is not bound up with the data the 5 senses continually sends to our minds - one just reaches a very peaceful state of receptivity and so on. Then one will have the vehicle to access and participate in these other worlds which anyone can know if they bother to find the techniques to break into it.
16 August 2006
3 weeks 8 hours
Seth (from Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul) (1972):
The creation of modern science owes much to secret societies and occult practices; many of the founding members of The Royal Society were Freemasons and/or Rosicrucians; later, Sir Isaac Newton, who devoted a great deal of his life to alchemical pursuits, did his part.
Even so, few if any these members of secret societies foresaw the effect of their "natural science" upon mass beliefs once their rudimentary explorations took hold as formal methods, as those methods and their results had a growing & widespread impact on all aspects of life on earth.
This has included a negative impact on religious belief, which began to wane in those parts of the world where science, its methods, and its applications gained sway, gradually becoming incorporated into educational, business, and political structures and institutions much as the church was once thoroughly embedded into earlier institutions and structures.
Meanwhile, egoic consciousness became even more refined and solidified, these developments contributing. (Noted: St. Augustine was the first writer to use "I" in the way in which we are so familiar today; the refinement of egoic consciousness is a phenomena that can be traced.)
"Normal scientists" may be referred to as "learned ignoramuses" by those in secret societies and esoteric groups yet they and members of those groups are and were all just people, like anyone else who has ever been born, lived, and died, developing personal and mass beliefs about the nature of reality while doing so. (I know working scientists, including several who are as fond of the Seth material as I am; my business activities are ultimately derived from scientific applications -- those who developed the necessary theories, the supporting experimentation, and then, later, various applications weren't stupid in the slightest, even if they tended to be materialists. Even if I've derided certain enthusiasts of science myself from time to time -- particularly diehard examples, convinced that what you or might refer to as "inner" is imaginary -- I admit that doing so was probably a waste of time and energy, accomplishing little or nothing, while denying any common humanity within these folks. This really is no way to connect with others.
Back to my theme: If at one time distorted religious beliefs, often supported as parts of official state religions, were most prominent in mass beliefs, they definitely began to be supplanted by the beliefs of rationalists, including scientists in recent centuries -- everything changes and all things must pass.
Typically, what began as what might be called "secret societies" eventually became religions; again, few if any members of those societies foresaw what would eventually develop from their activities. In those cases where these didn't die out, completely, the "truths" of these societies failed to be successfully transmitted and became quite distorted (assuming this wasn't the case from the beginning).
So I suggest that all such secret societies are somewhat overrated and again quote Seth (I'm no Seth fanatic, but I'm definitely a fan of his teachings, having encountered them as described here):
Like other teachers, Seth spoke (his books were dictated through Jane Roberts' vocal apparatus, as Jane was in trance) of what he called the "inner senses".
Seth delineated 9 inner senses; his description of them and exercises for apprising them can be found by anyone who searches for them on-line (one need not belong to a secret society to do this). Other teachers and traditions offer their own descriptions, delineations, and methods.
We don't yet live at a moment (or within a probable reality) where these are officially recognized. (They may never be officially recognized in some future probable realities -- see exercise #2. here for a method that enables anyone to experience personal probable realities -- but this is owing to the nature of probable realities and the choices made by individuals and groups of individuals that bring them about.)
Even so, beliefs always change and are even now changing, and this includes those held by members of various parts of the scientific community. The example of lucid dreaming is one case in point.
Does this mean that all manner of inner and/or psychological realities known to those who practice various techniques and methods from various sources will become instantly recognized in the halls of contemporary science?
No -- of course not, but give this a century or two; if you wish, you might tune in to those future probable realities in which this has happened; one way to accomplish this would be to "connect" with a future probable self alive in such a time and place, possible to accomplish because you and that self share certain regions of self.
Bill I.