The author Michael Prescott, whose often writes on his blog on the subjects of NDE and mediumship, wrote an article that looks at the subject of super-psi. Super-psi refers to the ability of the subconscious mind to get information about people and events in past and the future somehow to give the impression that the information actually comes from the spirit world, through the medium. The idea of super-psi is a way to explain the mediumship without actually involving the spirit world, supposing that it doesn’t exist.
Prescott argues in the article that the super-psi explanation is actually much less probably than the more parsimonious explanation of actual contact with dead relatives. Here’s what the super-psi subconscious has to do to “cover-up” for a real mediumship:
Our unconscious, then, would have the ability (actually or potentially) to reach at will into other minds, regardless of how widely scattered they might be, and even if the minds in question belong to total strangers, people of whose existence we were and are consciously unaware. Moreover, our unconscious would have the ability to perceive, through clairvoyance, information unknown to any living person, peeking into hidden places without restriction and virtually instantaneously, on demand. It has even been hypothesized that the unconscious could peer back in time (retrocognition) or gaze into the future (precognition) in order to obtain additional information. And all of this extraordinary power would be deployed in the service of a charade – the illusion of communication with a specific deceased personality that has, in reality, ceased to exist. Even the medium herself would have not the slightest idea that her unconscious mind was carrying on this amazing deception on a colossal scale.
But since the evidence for anomalous information received through mediums in many cases appears to be strong, Prescott argues, then the survival of consciousness after death appears to be the only probably explanation, given that super-psi is even more improbable.
I suggest you all go and read the article and its almost 50 high-quality comments yourself.
An article of Erin Pavlina, one of the mediums whose blog I like to read, relates to the difference that she feels between reading to skeptics and reading to people who are more open to them. The short version is that reading for skeptics is much harder to her and she can’t see as clearly as for people who are open to readings. Here are some excerpts from her article:
When I read for someone who is skeptical of psychic abilities it’s like asking me to read a book in the dark. Sure my eyes still work. Sure I can technically still see. Yes I still know how to read. But the light is bad and it’s hard to make out the words…
Sometimes it’s like being handed a book but every other word is blacked out. I can kind of piece the information together but the information definitely doesn’t come through that easily. The reading goes slowly and I end up having to get a lot of clarification. It’s like trying to watch tv with a faulty antenna; sometimes all you get is static.
Erin argues that this happens because of free will. That people block themselves from the readings, for one of two reasons: either they try to test the psychic or because the proof of psychic abilities would shatter their own belief system, and they’re afraid of this.
She concludes the article with the following:
Skeptics, be skeptical if you want. Totally your choice. But if you’re looking for proof of psychic abilities, turn on the light before you hand the psychic your book.
And I wonder, if her experience is true, then could we also project this idea on to other experiments that try to detect psi? I mean, will psi experiments conducted by skeptics be more prone to negative result while the same experiments performed by proponents more likely to succeed?
An honest medium:
- Should not ask who you want to hear from before a reading
- Will provide unsolicited evidential proof of survival of consciousness
- Should not engage in psychic predictions or fortune telling
- Will be 100% honest, even when they are 100% wrong
- Should not turn you into a psychic junkie or a spiritual dependent
The above paragraph is a quote from the most scientific medium I know, Marcel Cairo.
Marcel’s site contains an interesting story of his way into mediumship and his approach, where science is tool to learn more about consciousness. Go read it.
More than 3 years ago I interviewed Marcel Cairo on this site.
About a year ago I reviewed a great new film about the research in parapsychology called “Something Unknown” which was filmed and produced by Renée Scheltema from South Africa. I have also recorded and published an interview with Renée. You might want to read both articles, if you missed them.
Renée has recently announced that the movie can now be viewed and purchased in digital form online. Specifically, the film can be bought or rented through the iTunes Store. The link to its page in the store is: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewMovie?id=424161325&s=143441. From what I see it can be purchased for $14.99 or rented for $3.99.
If you can’t or don’t use iTunes Store you can also rent it to watch through the following site for $5 at http://www.sweetfilmstream.com/Something/. This site also has trailers available.
If you are interested about what the leading psi researchers have done in the past and what they do in the present, this is an invaluable movie. Support Renée and her work by viewing her great film!
A new Clint Eastwood film that has opened today in the UK and Europe, after a successful run in the US, and just been Academy Award nominated for best visual effects.
The movie, “Hereafter”, tells the story of three people who are haunted by mortality in different ways. George (Matt Damon) is a blue-collar American who has a special connection to the afterlife. On the other side of the world, Marie (Cécile de France), a French journalist, has a near-death experience that shakes her reality. And when Marcus (George McLaren and Frankie McLaren), a London schoolboy, loses the person closest to him, he desperately needs answers. Each on a path in search of the truth, their lives will intersect, forever changed by what they believe might—or must—exist in the hereafter.
“Hereafter” is produced by Clint Eastwood, Kathleen Kennedy and Robert Lorenz, with Steven Spielberg, Frank Marshall, Peter Morgan and Tim Moore serving as executive producers.
What happens after death? How can someone so close just disappear? How can those left behind continue to live? “Hereafter” is a drama that explores three characters’ search for answers about their own lives in the face of what lies beyond.
Peter Morgan wrote the screenplay for “Hereafter” shortly after having lost a dear friend in an accident. It forced him to mull the question everyone considers at some point in their lives. “He died so suddenly. So violently. It made no sense. His spirit was still so alive around us, at his funeral I was probably thinking what everyone else was: ‘Where has he gone?’” poses the screenwriter, who also served as an executive producer. “We can be so close to somebody, know everything about them, share everything with them, and then they’re gone and suddenly we know nothing. I wanted to write a story that asks some of those questions. There’s kind of an epic quality to that search.”
“Hereafter” unfolds through the eyes of three individuals in different parts of the world. Though their lives ultimately converge, they begin their journeys alone. Matt Damon plays George Lonegan, a reluctant psychic medium trying to break free from the desperate people seeking one last moment with loved ones that have passed on.