• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Scientist Claims Proof Of Afterlife

A

Anonymous

Guest
Scientist Claims Proof Of Afterlife
Research Finds Accuracy Of Mediums Channeling Dead People

UPDATED: 10:19 AM EST March 4, 2004

CLEVELAND -- What happens after we die - do we continue on or is this life the end?

Many of us hope there is an afterlife, and now some Arizona scientists say they have proof through their afterlife experiments.

There are many people who say they have died and come back to life. They claim to have experienced an afterlife, even if for only a short time.

Scientists at The University of Arizona have done extensive research, and say that they have the proof that when we die we continue to live beyond our physical bodies.

"Almost anyone who sees the data says there's something real here," said one of the researchers.

Allison Dubois is a spiritual medium, or someone thought to be able to communicate with the dead.

Christine Vettore was brought in for a reading with Dubois, who attempted to contact Vettore's dead relatives.

"I'm hopeful that there's an afterlife so I can see everybody I've lost already," said Vettore.

It doesn't take long -- within seconds, Dubois says Vettore's daughter is coming through.

It is a gift Dubois says she's had her whole life, but it comes with a lot of criticism.

"I think there are some people that are Charlatans, and with any profession there's going to be some bad apples, so I mean that just goes with the territory, so the ones that are accurate and are legitimate just have to prove themselves," said Dubois.

This reading is part of a science experiment -- Dr. Gary Schwartz, of the University of Arizona, is observing.

The Harvard-trained doctor looked for what he calls hits and misses, or the accuracy of the reading.

He's building on his hypothesis that there is life after death, and that mediums can talk to those who have died. After Vettore's daughter is contacted, Dubois contacted Vettore's brother and mother. She is able nail facts, giving details about the relations that she could not have known beforehand.

For instance, Dubois tells Vettore that her mother knows there's a carrot cake and a bowl of peanuts in her house.

"None of those things do I ever have in my house. I have those things in my house this month, carrot cake and peanuts, so that was weird," said Vettore.

The accuracy is amazing to Vettore, because she had never met or talked to Dubois before. She said Dubois was accurate in 80 to 90 percent of everything she said.

Skeptics say that Dubois is just guessing, but Schwartz says it is impossible for someone to guess and be that accurate.

For the past seven years, he has been testing mediums and other things tied to death, using science to explain what happens when we leave our physical bodies.

"Saying that this is against the grain with academia sort of puts it mildly," said Schwartz.

Schwartz has done multiple experiments under very controlled conditions. One of the most intriguing studies included five of the most respected mediums in the world, hooked up to monitors and computers.

In the experiment, 10 people were read by the five mediums. In lab conditions, a medium sat down with an individual and there would be a divider between them.

When that medium finished, the next would come in, until all five mediums had given a reading for the individual.

Schwartz and his staff would then compare the readings. They were astonished to find that in most cases, the mediums would bring through the same people and the same messages, with an 80-90 percent accuracy rate.

"There are so many people that are going to try to find holes in what we've done … there is not a hole to find when we agree, or get a final protocol done," said Schwartz.

The scientists call their findings survival of consciousness -- meaning our physical bodies die, but we continue on.

The research continues with studies that include near-death survivors.

Schwartz says near-death experience research completely dovetails and supports what's coming from the mediums.

He says he will continue his research, and that the data doesn't lie.

"When you look at the totality of the data from our laboratory, the simplest explanation is actually that survival of consciousness is real," said Schwartz.

Copyright 2004 by NewsNet5. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

sureshot
 
After reading The Psychic Mafia, I wouldn't believe a bloody word that any spirit medium comes out with.

I dare say that we might not agree on what constitutes a 'hit' in their analysis, but even if we do, there are a lot of spectacularly filthy tricks that get used to achieve a hot reading, up to and including rifling through peoples bags, garbage or even their houses without their knowledge to get info, and then sharing that info and anything else that came out in the reading with other mediums. Sometimes they even bug the church premises so that they can listen to people discussing what they want to ask the 'spirits' on their way in.

IMO it's a thoroughly nasty business.
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
After reading The Psychic Mafia, I wouldn't believe a bloody word that any spirit medium comes out with.

An understandable sentiment with which I am in sympathy; but neither Fortean nor scientific. Any time you or I act on this attitude before seeing the claimed evidence, we should do so bearing in mind that it's a prejudice. "All mediums are liars" is an unfalsifiable proposition - which doesn't necessarily make it untrue, but makes it scientifically irrelevant.

I've read Schwarz's book (The Afterlife Experiments) and the team did come up with some excellent protocols. I have no idea how the mediums got around them - yet I am convinced, on no evidence whatever, that one of them at least did. His name is John Edwards and I'm sorry, but I cannot listen to him and believe he's honest. My inability to believe something is not evidence, though, and if the double-blind experiments devised by Schwarz & Co. (including one conducted over the phone with random subjects who never spoke) do not provide evidence of dead-to-live communication, we are left with the question: What *would?*

This is in fact what Schwarz was interested in. He didn't care whether the dead could communicate particularly (and says toward the end of the book that he's having a hard time accepting his own data), but the challenge of designing an experimental protocol that really would be secure enough to stand up to the challenges of both believing excuse-makers (in case of failure) and rabid debunkers (in case of success) interested him profoundly.
 
So one wonders if he's going to claim Randi's $1 million.....
 
Some comments

There is so much faulty research on such paranormal subjects that the first reaction is to assume that any alleged evidence is the result of cold-reading (where the medium feeds vague answers to the subject and then zeros in on plausible scenarios from information provided by the subject) or simple fraud (where the medium obtains information on the subject prior to the session).

Even when neither of these common techniques are employed, there is the "astrological column" phenomenon where statements are made which can apply to, or cause assent in, any number of subjects equally well.

The list of questions from the Appendix D, the control subject's questionnaire closely ressembles the type of general, leading questions that medium's frequently employ:

APPENDIX D - Control Subject's Questionnaire.
Note: Sixty-eight control subjects filled out the following questionnaire. The average accuracy for the first 11 questions, for the 68 subjects as a whole, was 56%. Chance for yes / no questions is 50%. Performance on questions that required specific answers, such as question 12, was much lower than 50% (many questions were less than 5%). This questionnaire potentially overestimates actual guessing rates because it suggests areas where information should be requested. The mediums did not have these pointers.

NAME ________________________ SEX ____________ AGE
Can you guess information as well as a medium?
Please help us determine to what extent people can guess information about a person who is being "read" by a medium. Please answer each of the following questions. When you are finished, we will score your answers together and determine your overall accuracy.

The woman "sitter" is 46 years old: she experienced multiple deaths of loved ones during the past ten years. She lives in Arizona.
Check "alive" or "deceased" for each listing
Alive Deceased
1. Husband _____ _____
2. Daughter _____ _____
3. Son _____ _____
4. Mother _____ _____
5. Father _____ _____
6. Mother-in-law _____ _____
7. Father-in-law _____ _____
8. Aunt _____ _____
9. Uncle _____ _____
10. Cat _____ _____
11. Dog _____ _____

Answer each of the following questions:
1. Who called the sitter "Patsy"?
2. Did sitter's child who died die after the father?
3. What is the sitter's child's initial?
4. What is the sitter's child's name?
5. What was the cause of the sitter's child's death
6. Was the sitter's child happy?
7. Did the sitter's child have a sense of humor?
8. Did the sitter's child blame the mother (the sitter) for her / his condition?
9. Did the sitter's child blame the father for her / his condition?
10. Did the sitter's (her) mother die a long time ago?
11. Did her father die a long time ago?
12. Did her mother have any vices? If yes, what?
13. Did her father have any vices? If yes, what?
14. What was the cause of her mother's death?
15. What was the cause of her father's death?
16. Who named her (the sitter)?
17. Was she close with her father?
18. Was she close with her mother?
19. Was anything passed down from her father? If yes, what?
20. Did her father wear ties?
21. Did her father wear suits?
22. Did her father wear hats?
23. Did her father wear boots?
24. Did her father die slowly?
25. Who had false teeth?
26. What did she do with her teeth?
27. Who died first, mother or father?
28. Where did her father live?
29. Who gave a wedding band?
30. To whom was it given?
31. Where did her mother's parents live?
32. Who helped raise her?
33. Who was very good with her hands?
34. Who was very good with his hands?
35. Who loved to dance?
36. What kind of dancing did he / she do?
37. Who raised roses?
38. Who was a "pistol"?
39. Who received a family honor?
40. What was the honor?
41. Who did not meet the husband before the wedding?
42. Who attended the wedding purportedly from the spirit world?
43. Who could not walk well, from a stroke?
44. Who drove big vehicles?
45. Was her mother raised in the city?
46. What was your father's father's name?
47. Did her father wear a beard?
48. Was her mother a weak woman?
49. What male name was received by most of the mediums?
50. What is another male name received by most of the mediums?
51. What female name was received by most of the mediums?
52. What was the size of the dog? small medium large
53. What was the color of the dog? white with spots brown black and tan
54. What was the hair texture of the dog? short hair rough hair fluffy hair
55. What was the Aunt's name?
56. Did someone wear a military suit? If yes, who?
57. What strange thing happened in the house?
58. Who was believed to cause this event?
59. Who received a memorial?
How accurate do you think you were? _______% (from 0 to 100%)
How accurate do you think the mediums were _______% (from 0 to 100%)
What is your belief about survival of consciousness after death? Circle one
NO Probably NO Possibly NO Maybe Possibly YES Probably YES YES
 
Appendix C

As nearly as I can figure out on a quick overview, these experiments are pretty typical of "psychic research", namely they depend on the subject volunteering an impression of the accuracy of the psychic rather than the psychic actually providing hard facts.

Appendix C seems to be the questionnaire given to the subject.

Pooh!

To convince me you will have to do a solid double-blind test in which the psychic provides hard, verifiable facts which can be looked up, even though they are unknown to the psychic, the subject and the researchers.

Hard facts, dearie: numbers, dates, names, places, things. Not rubbish like "your mother loved big hats", which could apply to any number of mothers and vaguely to mine, or "I see somebody in a military uniform near to the deceased, who is?" (which could apply to any person on the face of the Earth except maybe the stillborn.)

No hard verifiable data, no data at all.

I don't care how accurate the subjects of mediums think the mediums are. The subjects of mediums are commonly fools.

First law of prophecy: give a date or an event but not both.
First law of mediumship: be vague, let the subject do the work.

I'll believe in life after death if the medium can tell me something I don't know, that no person living knows, that only a particular deceased person could know, that can be verified, and if the experiment can be repeated ad libitum.

No of this, "oh, your grandmother doesn't feel like talking today".

Ask her to tell me one of the stories she told me as a child--and I am not talking about the three little pigs--family history about identifiable persons, dates and times. I guarantee that nobody but she and I know some of them today.
 
Littleblackduck, I understand the reaction, but I've read the book and you haven't. Each subject of each experiment was given every reading for every subject and had to score every item in it a hit or a miss for his/her own family. "A name beginning with M" was a hit for Morty but not for Chester M. Arthur and certainly not for "mom". All "maybes" were misses. Under this protocol, general readings that apply to everyone should leap out.

I can't do a statistical analysis to save my life (just yesterday I subtracted 8 from 12 and got 2 - never trust my math) and I'm not even saying you're wrong. As I said, I can't believe in it either. (I might if John Edwards hadn't been in the mix.) It's entirely possible that if you looked at the protocols in detail you'd find weaknesses I didn't. I can even point you at what is probably a vulnerable point - in certain of the experiments (double blind with randomly selected targets) you got multiple cases in which the reading was wrong for the subject but dead-on for the next person in line. These were made note of in the book but counted as misses for statistical analysis. Hot reading is an obvious angle to follow on that, if you can trace the weakness in the experimental setup which allowed the psychics to guess was up next but not who was on stage now. You might not be able to figure that out from the book, and it might all seem like too much work for too little reward - but the experiments really were better designed than most.

If they don't tell us much about the afterlife, demonstrating that a determined fraud can always beat a designer is still interesting. Demonstrating that "the dead survive" and "all mediums are frauds" are equally unfalsifiable propositions is also interesting.
 
This experiment would have the same result if the psychic was reading the subject's mind instead of contacting the dead.
 
See this thread for discussion of the "Medium" TV show:

www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19618

And a report on tests on Allison Dubois:

Varied readings on Arizona psychic


UA professor Gary E. Schwartz has put Allison Dubois' psychic abilities to the test. "There is no question this is not a fraud," he says.



By Carla McClain
ARIZONA DAILY STAR

The real-life Phoenix woman who inspired the new TV drama "Medium" can indeed contact dead people, according to scientific - and controversial - tests performed on her at the University of Arizona.

The abilities of Allison Dubois - who claims she can see dead people, receive information from them, and even hear the thoughts of the living - are showcased in the new NBC Monday night show, with actress Patricia Arquette.

In real life, Dubois, 33 next week, has used her paranormal talents to help police in Phoenix and in other states solve crimes - the main plot of "Medium," along with her life as a wife and mother of three young children.

But what few may realize is Dubois' prime power - making contact with people after death - has been subjected to three years of UA research scientifically designed to determine if she is an authentic "medium" or a fraud.

Although the studies have stirred controversy nationwide and have been slammed by several skeptics, the Harvard-trained UA professor who ran them strongly defends their legitimacy, as does Dubois.

"There is no question this is not a fraud - some people really can do this, and Allison is one of them," said psychology professor Gary E. Schwartz, who directs the UA's Human Energy Systems Laboratory where the experiments with Dubois and other well-known mediums - including John Edward of TV's "Crossing Over" fame - have been conducted.

"Many people claim to do this, and there are clearly frauds out there. Allison was repeatedly tested and passed every test.

"As a scientist, I approach all this as an agnostic - I don't believe it; I don't disbelieve it. After testing her under conditions that ruled out the possibility of fraud, I came to the conclusion she's the real deal."

Dubois first called Schwartz four years ago, after seeing him on a "Dateline" NBC segment with John Edward on paranormal powers. She wanted to see how good her "gift" really was.

Schwartz first put Dubois through a direct, informal reading on himself. A beloved mentor of his had just died, but he told her nothing about that woman.

Among other things, Dubois told Schwartz "the deceased was telling me that I must share the following - I don't walk alone," a seemingly innocuous piece of information, but critical to him.

"My friend had been confined to a wheelchair in her last years - there is no way Allison could have known that," he said.

After that, the formal, scientific experiments began under controlled conditions - some of them completely "blinded," so Dubois could not see or talk to the person she was reading, or vice versa. They were not even told each other's full names.

In that situation, it is virtually impossible to use tricks fake mediums use - throwing out streams of general information and following up on those that get visible reactions - methods known as "cold reading."

In some cases, fake mediums also have been known to tap phones and hire detectives to get vital information on people they are going to read. That is impossible if the medium does not know who the person is.

In one of these experiments, Dubois was asked to contact a deceased person close to a woman in England she had never met. She was told only the woman's first name and that she wanted to hear from her deceased husband. During the actual reading, Dubois was at the UA lab, and the woman was in England.

A transcript of the information Dubois got during the reading - supposedly from the dead husband - was sent to his wife in England, who scored it as 73 percent accurate.

"That's extraordinarily high accuracy, and Allison always scored in the near-80 percent range," Schwartz said. "That clearly puts her among the best of the best."

No psychic medium is 100 percent accurate, he said.

Some of Dubois' best results were in one of her more famous UA experiments, when she read for celebrity physician-author-lecturer Dr. Deepak Chopra, just after the death of his father, a famous cardiologist in India.

During the reading, Chopra was in California, Dubois was in Arizona, and they were connected by phone. Dubois was not told who Chopra was. He could hear her, but he was not allowed to speak to her.

According to a summary of the reading done by Schwartz, she told him the deceased person was a man of great stature, extremely handsome, had beautiful women around him, was known to politicians and other well-known people, and was cremated - all accurate, according to Chopra's evaluation.

But she also told him his father was connected to the U.S. oil and steel industry, and there was a small dark terrier dog in his life - not true, Chopra said. Her accuracy score - 77 percent, according to Chopra's scoring, Schwartz said.

But Schwartz's careful design of these studies doesn't persuade skeptics, who say his work proves nothing.

"Professor Gary Schwartz makes revolutionary claims that he has provided competent scientific evidence for survival of consciousness and - even more extraordinary - that mediums can actually communicate with the dead. He is badly mistaken," wrote Ray Hyman, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Oregon, in a 2003 issue of the magazine Skeptical Inquirer.

Hyman's research has included examination of alleged psychic readings and critiques of parapsychological experiments. He acknowledges that Schwartz has excellent academic credentials but blasts his medium research.

"Probably no other extended program in psychical research deviates so much from the accepted norms of scientific methodology as this one."

After reviewing Schwartz's book, "The Afterlife Experiments," he said readings by Schwartz's "star mediums," like Dubois, "strike me as no different in kind from those of any run-of-the-mill psychic readers and as completely consistent with cold (fake) readings."

He criticized Schwartz for other research errors, such as using only subjects "predisposed" to believe in this phenomenon and for "inappropriate statistical tests."

In response, Schwartz said Hyman ignored and omitted facts that do not support his biases. "This is like a skeptical sports reviewer focusing on Michael Jordan's few air balls and fouls, and drawing the conclusion that Jordan can't play basketball," he said.

Perhaps more entertaining is the ongoing public feud Schwartz has with the flamboyant magician and professional skeptic James Randi, who has offered $1 million to "anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

Randi even wrote a letter to the University of Arizona Foundation in 2001, asking the university to submit Schwartz's research data to an independent panel for evaluation, to see if the UA might win the $1 million.

In one critique, Randi called Schwartz "an academic who has abandoned reason to accept everything and anything offered him by scammers from John Edward to the gypsy down the street."

Schwartz rejected Randi's million-dollar bait.

"I refused for the same reason all serious scientists in America and Europe have refused. The process of this prize lacks scientific credibility and integrity," he said. "This guy is not a scientist - he is a mediocre magician who loves the public eye."

Just how Allison Dubois could have faked what she told Phran Ginsberg about her teenage daughter Bailey - who died in a car crash two years ago - baffles Ginsberg.

"We were in separate states; we never met. I had no idea who was doing the reading. This was done by phone, and I was not allowed to speak," said Ginsberg, who lives in Lloyd Harbor, N.Y.

The first thing Dubois said was that she saw a photo of her daughter hugging her sister at a party. At that moment, Ginsberg was looking at a photo of the scene.

"Then she told me Bailey wished me 'Happy Valentine's Day.' And that didn't make sense, because it was October," she said. But later that day, she took the photo from its frame, and on the back Bailey had written "Valentine's Day Dance."

"Right then, I knew Allison was the real deal," Ginsberg said. Dubois also had described the accident and Bailey's fatal head injury.

"How could she know this? I just can't see any way she could fake that - she didn't know my name. She didn't know Bailey's name. I see absolutely no other way. This has to be real."

On TV

● "Medium" airs at 9 tonight on KVOA Channel 4. The show stars Patricia Arquette as Allison and Jake Weber as her husband, Joe Dubois.

To learn more

● For more information on Allison Dubois, visit her Web site at www.allisondubois.com

● For more information on professor Gary Schwartz's research on psychic mediums, including Dubois, visit veritas.arizona.edu/

● To explore the skeptics' view of research into psychic phenomena, visit www.csicop.org or www.randi.org

Source
 
A transcript of the information Dubois got during the reading - supposedly from the dead husband - was sent to his wife in England, who scored it as 73 percent accurate.

Now an interesting assessment would be to send the same reading to several other women who had recently lost their husbands, and see how many of them rated it as accurate.

Its seems IMO that the evidence could equally well be evidence of telepathy or remote viewing.
 
Timble said:
Its seems IMO that the evidence could equally well be evidence of telepathy or remote viewing.

I agree. All this study suggests is that some living people might be able to communicate with other living people without using any conventionally understood language. Which is pretty cool.
 
For instance, Dubois tells Vettore that her mother knows there's a carrot cake and a bowl of peanuts in her house.

Don't the dead have better things to do than to spy on our snacks?
 
graylien said:
For instance, Dubois tells Vettore that her mother knows there's a carrot cake and a bowl of peanuts in her house.

Don't the dead have better things to do than to spy on our snacks?

I thought there wasn't any food in heaven until I saw Monty Pythons Meaning of Life. The newly deceased were offered complimentary "After Life Mints"
 
Tv show Medium

I've seen two episodes and I'd watch it even if I didn't already believe in life after death. The writing is just that good. Ex.: After the first day of the new job the star of the show is so happy it has gone well that she is lying in bed with a smile on her face. To which her very cool husband responds, "Stop smiling, the moonlight is bouncing off your teeth and right in my eyes!"- great line.
Also had my own experience. Three years ago my Dad passed away. It was very sudden and after the memorial service I tried in vain to help my Mom look for the Will Dad had recently done. It was not in any of the usual "safe keeping" places. After a couple of days of searching I had a moment alone in the livingroom and just mentally framed the question to Dad, "Where did you put the Will?" Then let myself wander. In less than a minute I was sitting on the couch in front of an old cobbler's bench we use as a coffee table. I pulled open one of the two drawers hung beneath it and right on top of the pile of catchall was the Will. The whole experience left me feeling as if Dad had been right in the room with me guiding every move. I KNEW we'd been in contact. Nothing spooky about it. Just that old familiar talking with Dad feeling.
 
"There is no question this is not a fraud," he says.
I'm still trying to work out what that means. :lol:

Thing about 'proof' is, if it can be proved, it can be found out first and presented as evidence.

We see this on Most Haunted, when a medium comes up with a 'fact' and the historians try to validate it there and then from records. If they can find it, does that mean it's available for anyone to learn and repeat as proof? Or if they can't, is that evidence of something that only Derek knows, or is it made up or just unverifiable?

We watched an early episode of MH and I said eveything Derek said before he did (the ghostly ape, the secret door to a tower, the girl's jilting and suicide etc) which the BF thought was impressively spooky. Nah, I read it in a book as a teenager, 30 years ago.

The afterlife, its existence or not, is a matter of faith and ca't be proved.
We'll all find out, one way or another, anyway!
 
afterlife? faith for some. truth for others

The afterlife, its existence or not, is a matter of faith and ca't be proved.
We'll all find out, one way or another, anyway!

Alas, well, usually. :)

When someone is presented with a "message" it is kinda hard to say "it's just faith". *something* is there.

The nature of the afterlife is SO misunderstood. . . I think the person's belief in the nature of the afterlife is a matter of faith. The actual existence, to me, has been proved. (but then, I've seen some pretty odd happenings)
:shock:

(next sentence not directed to anyone in particular)
Until you see some odd happenings yourself, I understand your skepticism. I can't really say "Trust me, I know" because I've been where you are.

oh yeah, don't ask me to explain the nature of the afterlife. I don't really understand it. heck, I'm still trying to figure out the nature of *this* life.
perhaps when one truly understands this life, then they can begin to understand the afterlife.
 
I'd like to know, from all those people who believe in this, how, when a person/animal etc dies....their personality, (which exists as a mass of electrochemical signals and storages in an organic brain)...can continue without the brain and other organisms. And what would happen if a person was brain damaged? Would their survival continue the damage? If not, how and why not? Also, why do people always report ghosts or spirits or whatever they call them...as wearing clothes, having a human form and/or from a particullarly recognisable period in history?
Hmmmmmm...... (I've heard the very "Convenient" theories of '...They come to us as we would expect them to look' bollocks, so if anyone can address these questions, I would be interested to read the replies. :roll:
 
Answering questions

Spillage,
I'll try to answer some of your questions. For a full answer, I'd probably need to write a book! :)

how, when a person/animal etc dies....their personality, (which exists as a mass of electrochemical signals and storages in an organic brain)...can continue without the brain and other organisms.

I don't know how, if you're asking about the "physical" explanation of the effect. For a more complete, albiet unscientific one, it's the "soul" that survives, not the "personality." It is the soul that survives without the physical restraints of the body. (some who claim astral projection can "leave" their body, even while alive)

what would happen if a person was brain damaged? Would their survival continue the damage? If not, how and why not?

Survival would continue without damage. The soul is not damaged. It is the physical body/brain that was damaged.

why do people always report ghosts or spirits or whatever they call them...as wearing clothes, having a human form and/or from a particullarly recognisable period in history?

Because the ghosts need to know that the person they are communicating with know who they were while alive. If it helps for them to wear clothes, they'll be clothed. If it helps for them to make the person feel as if they can't breath, it could mean the ghost drowned. It is the ghost who chooses how they appear. Or, for those ghosts that don't know better, how they think they should appear.

I know this isn't the best explanation of the phenomena, but I feel that the whole thing is misunderstood, or at best, miscommunicated to the masses. Of course, the masses also misunderstand when the media misreports odd phenomena; and also when frauds are tossed in the mix.
 
Thanks for your reply but the explanations are all opinions or guesses.
The 'soul' explanation was predictable, but if we had souls, then the personality isn't connected, otherwise there would be no need for internal organs or even anything remotely connected.
Do stillborn babies have souls? Do they have personalities and are they able to communicate? There could be a limited supply of 'answers'
there ranging from the probable to the absurd. "The brain is a tool the soul uses to convey. If the brain is damaged either at birth or through disease/ accidental damage, then the soul cannot express itself properly, but after death, it is free." Hmmmmm...... The afterlife theory/belief is far too easily explained in psychology and social science as a prodominantly human bi product of certain instincts and behaviours to be practical or real.
Still, it's interesting to hear they who believe try to explain it.
 
From my experience/ knowledge of the subject. . .

Do stillborn babies have souls? Do they have personalities and are they able to communicate?

From what I've heard, yes, they have souls. They are detectable by those who can "see dead people". Now, *when* the soul enters the fetus/baby is up to debate. I don't know that one.



"The brain is a tool the soul uses to convey. If the brain is damaged either at birth or through disease/ accidental damage, then the soul cannot express itself properly, but after death, it is free."

I haven't heard it put that way. I also don't know what it means for the soul to express itself/convey. Express itself for what? convey what? While alive, it is up to the person to live life. The soul exists, but it doesn't really need to convey itself as a different entity than the living person, while alive.

The afterlife theory/belief is far too easily explained in psychology and social science as a prodominantly human bi product of certain instincts and behaviours to be practical or real.

Sure, some of it can be explained by psychology, but when a friend of mine comes up with some seriously personal information about someone they know very little about, then that cannot be explained by psychology, as it is defined today.

Still, it's interesting to hear they who believe try to explain it.

I know, ain't it silly of them? :D

Most of the explanations are best guesses, and as new science comes along, they try to use it for explaining what's going on.
Quantum stuff? Not at all, that explains discrete bits of energy instead of continuous energies. It is best explained statistically (with math that I've mostly forgotten)
Dark Matter? That's just non-illuminated matter in the universe, used to explain discrepancies in illuminated matter and the expansion of the universe.
Those have nothing to do with parapsychology.

It *does* have something to do with the mind of the "psychic" (for lack of a better term) who can see the ghosts (again, for lack of a better term). It *does* have something to do with the spirits (not really a better term, but probably better than "ghost" in this context) trying to get through. How it works is unknown. and I agree with spillage that it's fun to watch them use unsuitable terminology to explain it.

Even psychology tries to come up with explanations for how the brain works. Ego, Superego, Id, conscious, subconscious, et cetera et cetera. These terms are used to describe what the brain/mind/person is or how it works. These are also too simplistic for the complexity of the mind/brain. Better terminology must be created to explain it, not terminology borrowed from a different field entirely.
 
spillage said:
I'd like to know, from all those people who believe in this, how, when a person/animal etc dies....their personality, (which exists as a mass of electrochemical signals and storages in an organic brain)...can continue without the brain and other organisms. And what would happen if a person was brain damaged? Would their survival continue the damage? If not, how and why not?
A damm good question. What about people with Alzheimers? Their brains are slowly destroyed cell by cell, so that their humanity, personality, memories, perceptions - everything that differentiates them from a lump of mould - gradually vanish. What happens to the soul/personality in such a case? If it survives whole and intact somewhere, at what point does it separate from the body? And why doesn't it return before the physical death of the body that used to hold it?
 
attempting to answer more questions

What about people with Alzheimers? Their brains are slowly destroyed cell by cell, so that their humanity, personality, memories, perceptions - everything that differentiates them from a lump of mould - gradually vanish. What happens to the soul/personality in such a case?

The soul survives, and is intact, with knowledge that the physical body detiorated. It is no longer burdened with the physical limitations of the damaged cells.

If it survives whole and intact somewhere, at what point does it separate from the body? And why doesn't it return before the physical death of the body that used to hold it?

It usually separates at the time of death of the body. I have heard some psychics claim to have been visited by someone who was in a coma, so sometimes the spirit does leave the living body.

Why it doesn't return before the physical death of the body, it's because it is "supposed" to live the full life. (for an extremely lacking explanation) It's not something I can really explain, but it's "why you live" in the first place. Again, not understanding the after-life, it is impossible to explain fully to the living, who "should not" know/ understand the afterlife because it's incomprehensible to the living. (This is from hearing from those who can talk to the spirits, and trying to get more answers from the spirits than the spirits are "allowed" to give) To me, this basically means that most attempts to "scientifically evaluate" mediumship will fall short because the spirits don't participate when tested. They come through when needed. (I know, I know. . . I'd love to be able to scientifically test mediumship also, but the mediums I know don't choose when it happens, it just happens)

For example, while at a party, my friend sees a little girl (okay, the "spirit" of the little girl). They ask the house owner if they know a little girl with a particular description. The owners being in the house a very short time don't recognize the description. It's not like my friend chose to see the little girl; the little girl just happened to come through at that particular time.
 
Again, these are all very 'convenient' excuses mediums and psychics give under scrutiny. What would the evolutionary purposes be of having souls?
It doesn't make any rational sense that, if we accept..our existence is due to randomness, call it chance if you may, and our primary purpose and drive in life is to survive so our genes can be reproduced and live on in our offspring and theirs and their and so forth. This instinct wouldn't exist if we were designed to enable a continuity of existance. We're not tadpoles that turn into frogs of the after realm. It's just fanciful nonsense.
We see things that are truly there as a result of millions and millions of years of evolutionary variables where light enters our eyes from a mass which reflects photons onto our retina. Anything else we see is either imagined or metaphoric. It's as simple as that. To see a 'ghost' of a person, standing or whatever in a place, is impossible. The only time one person could see something another can't in the same location is when either the seen thing is obscured from the other's viewpoint, or the other person has a visual defect or isn't looking.
If the afterlife exist and we all go there, then our ancestors and their ancestors (which, in turn are also ours)...will be there and they would stretch right back into the microscopic. There, nothing dies and nothing is cleared away to make room for anew. It would be, (Even if the place was infinitely spaced) chocka block with people, animals etc. Segregation there would infer catagorisation.
It's amusing how no mediums have ever contacted anyone on "the other side" from a period in time where there is no record or even illustrations and reference to their dress and language? Mediums have only been around since the Fox sisters of New York in the latter part of the 19th Century when they faked rapping noises and contact with the passed away folk causing a new craze, as it were. If what the psychics and mediums say is true, then they would have been around thousands and thousands of years ago and their observations would have been accepted by the most orthodox of religious figures.
Here's a test for all your medium friends, (and I am not being fececious or impolite here..) ask them to ask the spirits anything about me (I gather they can see me actually typing this right now!)...something that can't be gleaned from the blatant facts in my posts, past and present, my location which is on my profile, or the avitar on here etc... it shouldn't be that much of a trial if what they say is genuine and not just convenience fodder to bolster their belief in something that makes them feel safer than the knowledge that we live for no more reason than to procreate, then die, only living on in our gene carrying offspring.
Excuses like the ones frequently used by psychics and mediums etc will be taken with a squeeze of lemon. I'm not being offensive, us sceptics have as much right to our beliefs and reasoning as the believers...the challenges we sometimes offer are exactly like the reasons the believers give to bolster their practice.
And, thankyou for taking the time to reply.
Cheers.
 
spillage said:
If the afterlife exist and we all go there, then our ancestors and their ancestors (which, in turn are also ours)...will be there and they would stretch right back into the microscopic. There, nothing dies and nothing is cleared away to make room for anew. It would be, (Even if the place was infinitely spaced) chocka block with people, animals etc. Segregation there would infer catagorisation.

I was checking out Marcus Aurelius for suitable quotes to put off our resident BVM believer and spotted this.

If souls continue to exist, how does the air contain them from eternity?-
But how does the earth contain the bodies of those who have been buried
from time so remote? For as here the mutation of these bodies after
a certain continuance, whatever it may be, and their dissolution make
room for other dead bodies; so the souls which are removed into the
air after subsisting for some time are transmuted and diffused, and
assume a fiery nature by being received into the seminal intelligence
of the universe, and in this way make room for the fresh souls which
come to dwell there.
From Mediations: Marcus Aurelius 167 AD

Anticipates the same point as you raised, though not quite the same conclusion, MA prosposes that souls carry on for a while but eventually disperse. (a pretty neat, if unproveable idea) He generally
has a pretty sceptical attitude to the gods and the afterlife.
 
The blind men and the elephant

I've enjoyed reading questions that Spillage has been posting on this question of "Is There and Afterlife?" He has really been thinking long and hard on this as we all do. It does seem that while we are alive we can only percieve this life. The old term of the 'veil' of death acting as a barrier between this plane of existance and the next seems impermialble. But lately I've become to appreciate just how incredibley sensitive our physical bodies are and how it is possible that we can perceive somethings that we can't see with our eyes or touch with our hands. For example, I've gotten migraines before really bad storms often enough so that when the weatherman predicts that a hurricane or blizzard will miss us and I get a migrain, I plan for a hit and am never surprised. I've learned to trust my bodies' perception of the subtle air pressures that can't been seen on the weather man's radar. Does anybody else out there have a weather knee or shoulder that aches before it rains? It's not a supernatural phenomina it's just unquantified. I didn't understand what was meant by the term "seeing in your minds eye". I thought that just refered to your imagination. Until I was hit with a clairvoyant experience, completely by surprise. And it really was like "seeing" a bit of a film clip run in your brain-the action already in progress-sight, sound, smell and most startling-the emotions being felt by the participants of the event I was "seeing". It took my breath away it was so vivid. And yet I was the only one in the audience. My Ex had been sitting next to me driving the car we were in and he hadn't been affected at all. When we got to our destination and checked in the the B&B, I took the car back to the site-and felt nothing. But on the way back to the B&B I pulled into a little scenic rest stop and found a plaque mounted away from the road that commemorated the sorrowful events of the massacre I'd "wittnessed" unbiddingly in my "minds eye." So you figure out that your body has other 'sense' abilities that aren't yet listed with the most familiar 5.

I don't believe in the SUPERnatural. I believe that everything has to obey the physical laws that govern our universe. If our bodies function via chemical and electrial energy and by natures laws energy cannot be destroyed 'only changed', that little bit of us that is energy must go on after the functioning body dies. And we are much more sensitive to our enviornment than we've given ourselves credit for. We'd have to be to survive, it would just make sense evolutionarily, that some of us would be sensitive enough to detect things our first 5 senses cannot. And that would give those people a survival edge. So everything has to be able to be explained scientifically we just haven't run the right tests with the right tech to explain how it all works yet. I suppose the first thing would be to better understand how our bodies work in this life before, that might help in understanding how they perceive the next.
 
Good post, thanks.
Yes, but the energies that are transformed on release after the body dies is disintegrated into electical, gases, liquids, heat etc...
It's analoguous to tearing the feathers out of, or the feathers falling out of a bird's wing. The limb of the wing is left behind but the feathers are no more a wing and are no more a single entity or work in anyway as one, nor do they seek to reassemble themselves.
Air pressure effects mercury and alcohol and membranous materials, so it's only reasonable to expect that it effects us in some way as to be noticable. Afterall, pressure effects synus problems and temperature fluctuations effect athritis etc..It's understood.
The thing is...I've witnessed many many many experiments with spiritualists and none of them hold any water, (And I mean many!) But they always say that things happen and work when I'm not around! Why didn't they work when I installed a video camera either?
To be honest, the only nightmares I have are the ones where ESP and telekenisis etc actually exist! I would go insane if it were proven that Ghosts are a reality and there is a Heaven and Hell afterall! That would be senseless imprisonment. Life would be one great fascistic movement and we would have to answer to the great overlord without any choice. Afterall...noone asked to be born! (Please...no "So you should be grateful that you were given it!")
I shan't talk about my opinions on religion as I think if it was as it is, then we'd instinctively all believe in the same God, no question of differing views or ignorance. And as it is, I feel like I'm in (This is not intended as an offense or in any way an inference of greatness lol!) a large room full of children who are wide eyed and believe in things because they haven't found out the truths of reality yet and no matter what I say or how I act, they still want to, and rightly should..believe in what they want to. (Unless it's harmfuland/or destructive!)
Oh natter natter blah blah! lol. It's amazing how much dilge one can come out with when yer bird's gone home to Ireland for a week visiting old friends and you are sat at home doing nothing! lol!
THanks for listening/reading :D
 
The blind men and the Elephant

Thanks for the response to the post. It still nags at me that our self awareness hits a wall when we as humans try to see inside the working of the brain. I mean, I know that as I write this there is furious chemical and electrical interaction going on inside 'me brain pan' just in the effort of remembering and forming these sentences. But aside from the neural transports for memory where does the begining of emotion originate in this gelatinous goo I have inside my head. Because it seems that that is the strongest communicator. That being said, the incidents that we experience that have the most emotional impact on us seem to somehow(chemically?,atomically-like on a vibrational level?) attatch to the places where the emotion was evoked. And years later, under the exact right circumstances another person can 'get a whiff' so to speak of them too.
I'd really like to know how that happens. Are our bodies (minds) like tuning forks that can sometimes respond to certain vibes and be caused to vibrate in kind? Picking up on the same note or emotion that had occured in that spot before? And what is the point of leaving little bits of our life experience about like that. A kind of temporal booby trap to be sprung on the next person who passes by during similar condtions to the original moment of emotional outburst. That fracturing of self doesn't seem to do any good. But it does happen. And if a fracture of self can linger beyond the life of the person why not the whole?
 
I would rather summise or expect that a location which induces similar, if not the same emotional response has some electro magnetic or sub-sonic properties. Low frequency vibrations from an oscillating source, maybe quite a distance away, have been responsible for the feelings and even visions in certain places. We've seen that electro magnetic bombarding can actually affect objects physically and make them fly about or even distort! All these things have nature identical sources.

Where another person senses fear or a feeling that matches somone else's previously...and there is no source of these discussed intereferences, there could be some subliminal trigger...like colours, or shapes or even sounds.

Occam's razor.
 
Back
Top