Why do believers want a reading with a psychic medium?

[CFLarsen]

Clancie came up with a very good point in another thread: Before one wants to argue against people seeking out psychic mediums, one should make an effort to understand the reasons for wanting the reading.

I would like to ask the people who have had a reading with a psychic medium to tell us the reasons why they got one - or even started looking into these matters and began believing.

As I understand it, both Steve Grenard, Clancie, neofight and RC all lost a close relative/friend shortly before their interest in mediums started. Does this have anything to do with it?

[RC]

Yes, my interest in mediums came shortly after the death of my partner. I stumbled on the Crossing Over show (the one where he reads Melissa Gilbert that they've shown a million times) and I got hooked. That led to my further research and desire for my own reading(s).

Interestingly, my interest and to some extent my belief in mediums decreased at about the same rate as my grief. I don't know what that means, and it is specific to my own situation, but it's something I realized the other day.

I know that neofight's interest was not sparked by a recent loss.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Clancie came up with a very good point in another thread: Before one wants to argue against people seeking out psychic mediums, one should make an effort to understand the reasons for wanting the reading.

I would like to ask the people who have had a reading with a psychic medium to tell us the reasons why they got one - or even started looking into these matters and began believing.

As I understand it, both Steve Grenard, Clancie, neofight and RC all lost a close relative/friend shortly before their interest in mediums started. Does this have anything to do with it?

Claus,

As you may remember, I had a thread on TVTalkShows about my experiences with a number of mediums. In each case, I came away from the experience feeling that I'd not only not seen any evidence of communication with the dead, but no evidence of psychic ability either. My motive for visiting these mediums had nothing to do with any recent loss of a loved one. It was purely a matter of intellectual curiosity--a desire to see first hand if any of the mediums I visited would show any evidence of either psychic ability or ability to communicate with the dead. While I think that it's evident that many people have sought out mediums in the hope of communicating with deceased loved ones, I think that reason does not hold for everyone. And in the history of the investigation of mediums since the founding of the SPR, I think that there have been a number of investigators who were motivated primarily by scientific curiosity, and not by a desire to alleviate personal grief.

I know you addressed your post to believers, so I probably don't qualify, since at this point I am agnostic as to even the existence of an afterlife, let alone mediums' ability to communicate with spirits allegedly dwelling in such an afterlife. But I thought I'd respond anyway.

Mike

[CFLarsen]

RC,

I might have been wrong about neofight, then. It could be interesting to hear neofight.

Your point about your interest waning might be a good one. Could it be that we seek out mediums as a way of dealing with our grief?

If that is the case, why do some people continue to seek out mediums? Is it because they can't get go?

Mike D.,

I don't think I particularly address my post to believers. I merely pointed to some believers here as an example.

Can I ask you why you reposted my whole post?

[Pyrrho]

Everybody's looking for a miracle, these days. It's a way of "coping" with the stress of modern life, or a way of feeling "special", or part of the "miracle". Today it's mediums, tomorrow it's some other pseudo-spiritual fad, such as faith healing. Some people just want to have that "glow" of thinking they've been in touch with God, somehow.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Mike D.,

I don't think I particularly address my post to believers. I merely pointed to some believers here as an example.

Can I ask you why you reposted my whole post?

Claus,

In reading your post again, I see that it is not only addressed to believers. I apologize for the mistake. I also apologize for reposting your whole post. I've gotten into the habit of quoting the post I'm responding to for reference, but I can see that it was not necessary in this case since the thread is not that long yet.

Mike

[Clancie]

Posted by Mike D

While I think that it's evident that many people have sought out mediums in the hope of communicating with deceased loved ones, I think that reason does not hold for everyone.

And in the history of the investigation of mediums since the founding of the SPR, I think that there have been a number of investigators who were motivated primarily by scientific curiosity, and not by a desire to alleviate personal grief.
Hi Mike,

To me the question you answered--"Why does anyone want a reading?"--is more interesting than the one in the thread title.

I'm sure, as you mention, that there are many reasons someone might see a psychic or medium, grief being just one possibility.

In the case of Sylvia (from Kenneth's thread), the stepmother's reasons for going might be even more interesting than someone going to see JE, since Sylvia considers herself much more of a professional psychic than she does a medium.

Personally, I have no interest in going to Sylvia or any psychic, but I am interested in knowing what people would be hoping to hear from one.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mike D.
In reading your post again, I see that it is not only addressed to believers. I apologize for the mistake.

No need to apologize. :)

Originally posted by Mike D.
I also apologize for reposting your whole post. I've gotten into the habit of quoting the post I'm responding to for reference, but I can see that it was not necessary in this case since the thread is not that long yet.


Hmmm....actually, when I look through your more recent posts, I see both posts where you quote and where you don't quote at all. However, when you do quote, it is only the snippet that you reply to.

Just wondered why this was not the case here.

But...as I write this, I can see why. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
To me the question you answered--"Why does anyone want a reading?"--is more interesting than the one in the thread title.

Sure, if you want...

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm sure, as you mention, that there are many reasons someone might see a psychic or medium, grief being just one possibility.

What other reasons? Wanting to find out whether the psychic was real or not? Spending thousands of dollars, and a lot of time and effort on this? Wow, that's dedication to something that doesn't fill up much of one's life...

Originally posted by Clancie
In the case of Sylvia (from Kenneth's thread), the stepmother's reasons for going might be even more interesting than someone going to see JE, since Sylvia considers herself much more of a professional psychic than she does a medium.

She does? Where does she say this? What's the difference?

Originally posted by Clancie
Personally, I have no interest in going to Sylvia or any psychic, but I am interested in knowing what people would be hoping to hear from one.

Uhoh...yes, you do:

Gryphon2 207.175.243.209 09-02-2002 11:59 AM (Clancie, as we know you here)
Neo: "If he were still accepting names, my name and my husband's would definitely be on it."

Yes, you, me, and probably thousands of people watching CO would be signing up.

Have you changed your mind about going to see JE? Have you not seen other psychics before, e.g. Robert Brown and Brian Hurst?

I don't really see that you have tried to reply to the issue of this thread - or even why anyone would want a reading. I find that strange, since you were the one who brought it up. Oh well, we can hope other chime in...

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Today it's mediums, tomorrow it's some other pseudo-spiritual fad, such as faith healing.

Pyrrho,

It does seem to me that various forms of alleged paranormal activity are subject to cycles of popularity, and wax and wane periodically as the decades go by.

Mike

(Claus, note that I've quoted only a snippet above. :) )

[thaiboxerken]

For some, it's their way of "proving" to themselves that praying or talking to a deceased loved one really does get through to "the other side". For others, it's "proving" to themselves that there is something more after death. It all comes down to fear of death and the inability to deal with death.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Mike D.
(Claus, note that I've quoted only a snippet above. :) )
(Yes, I noticed that you have gone back to your usual MO, now that Clancie can respond without having to talk to me directly...don't think I don't notice these things... :))

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Spending thousands of dollars, and a lot of time and effort on this?

Claus,

I know your comment here was addressed to Clancie, but I want to express my personal views of the cost of sessions with mediums. I would not be inclined to visit a medium who charged what I would consider to be an unreasonably large sum of money. Where the cutoff point would be for me I guess I'd have to decide on a case by case basis, as I've done in the past, but the thought of paying over a thousand dollars or even several hundred dollars for a session with a medium seems ridiculous to me, since the medium is asking me to pay for a service that likely has not been shown, or at least not yet been shown, by scientific testing to be valid. But I can see how certain mediums can command what I regard to be unresonable fees, in that there are probably lots of people who accept that what a particular medium does is genuine and are willing to pay large sums of money for the assurance that their loved ones are still living and loving in the afterlife. And I can see how that desire for assurance could fuel an almost addictive quest that would take someone from one medium to another and become a consuming passion.

I remember reading that Brian Hurst charges a modest fee to those who attend his seances--I believe well under $100. If I was living in the Los Angeles area, I'd probably check him out. But I have no interest in paying to fly across the country to see him.

Mike

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

(Yes, I noticed that you have gone back to your usual MO, now that Clancie can respond without having to talk to me directly...don't think I don't notice these things... :))

Claus,

Since when did you become a conspiracy theorist? :)

Mike

[CFLarsen]

Mike D.,

I am not merely talking about the actual cost of the reading. We also have to count in travel expenses, hotel, food, drink, etc.

In Clancie's case, she is willing to fly across the country, shelling out a lot of money on a medium she does not believe is real.

Oh, I forgot. No, she doesn't. Now.

Originally posted by Mike D.
Since when did you become a conspiracy theorist? :)

Look me in the eyes and tell me I was wrong. :)

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Mike D.,

I am not merely talking about the actual cost of the reading. We also have to count in travel expenses, hotel, food, drink, etc.

In Clancie's case, she is willing to fly across the country, shelling out a lot of money on a medium she does not believe is real.

Oh, I forgot. No, she doesn't. Now.



Look me in the eyes and tell me I was wrong. :)

Claus,

I agree with you about the cost of the reading itself not being the only factor to consider. As I mentioned, I would not fly across the country to check out Brian Hurst. And food and lodging, as you mention, can be very expensive too if one doesn't have friends in an area with whom one can stay.

And yes, you are wrong if you believe that I quoted your post so that Clancie could see it and respond. After all, I was responding to your *entire* post and not just a portion of it. And if Clancie ever asked me to quote your posts just so she could see them, I would certainly not agree to do so.

(Unfortunately, I can't look you in the eyes and say this, as you are in Denmark! If you'd only stayed in New York, I could perhaps have taken the train down and met you at a skeptic meeting and said it then! And maybe gotten in a session with Steve's trance medium as well! :) )

Mike

[CFLarsen]

Mike D.,

If you say so. ;)

[max]

CFLarsen
I went to a couple of mediums because I had, had several 'paranormal' incidents and I thought maybe I could find out more but I was disappointed. Also the dead are unable to predict the future in the same way that we can't. No jokes about the dead can't speak anyway please

[Clancie]

Posted by Mike D

And yes, you are wrong if you believe that I quoted your post so that Clancie could see it and respond. After all, I was responding to your *entire* post and not just a portion of it. And if Clancie ever asked me to quote your posts just so she could see them, I would certainly not agree to do so.
Thank you, Mike. At least now I know Claus realizes he's on "Ignore". (Sometimes I wonder....)

And, lol, about me asking to have his posts "reprinted". If I wanted to know what they say, I could always click on the post and see for myself. I wouldn't have to impose on my friends to get it for me! :)

Claus won't (or can't) change his ways to me (the rudeness and misrepresentations), but I guess he just doesn't like to be ignored at all. Oh, well, maybe some day he'll realize that what goes around comes around, and change his tactics. One can hope...:p

[Cleopatra]

When I lost somebody close to me, his sister started seeing a medium.

Interestingly enough she started delivering to me "his" wishes regarding various issues financial mostly that they weren't included in his official will that even I ignored its existence before his death... His sister was not included in this will and as you understand she was kind of frustrated but since the will was completely legal she couldn't offend it in court.

So, with the help of the medium she attempted to create tensions between friends and relatives by implying that I was ignoring the will of the dead. Nice way to get over a death, don't you think?

This comes from my personal experience, something that coincides my professional experience as well. It's not rare that people use "info" provided by mediums to influence other people's will and decisions.

[Yahweh]

I'd see a psychic medium, just for laughs... of course I'd probably spend the money on something more constructive... probably refurnishing my home with more plants (because we are in dire need of more plants...).

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by max
No jokes about the dead can't speak anyway please

It's no joke, it's a fact.

[RC]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
RC,

I might have been wrong about neofight, then. It could be interesting to hear neofight.

Your point about your interest waning might be a good one. Could it be that we seek out mediums as a way of dealing with our grief?

If that is the case, why do some people continue to seek out mediums? Is it because they can't get go?


I think it's impossible to brush all that go to mediums with one stroke. I'm sure that many go to deal with grief. I think I went out of both grief and genuine curiosity. If I were to go to one again, which I probably will, it will be strictly out of curiosity since I'm no longer grieving.

I'm sure there are many people who can't let go of those who have died and continue to seek out mediums. There is a lot of unhealthy behavior associated with an inability to complete the grieving process.

[RC]

Claus, just to correct something, Clancie is saying in this thread that she is not interested in seeing a *psychic*. She is distinguishing between *psychic* and *medium*.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RC
Claus, just to correct something, Clancie is saying in this thread that she is not interested in seeing a *psychic*. She is distinguishing between *psychic* and *medium*.

I am aware of that. However, she has refused to say what the difference is.

[Clancie]

Posted by RC

Claus, just to correct something, Clancie is saying in this thread that she is not interested in seeing a *psychic*. She is distinguishing between *psychic* and *medium*.
Thank you for clarifying that for Claus, RC. I would have certainly expected that he already understood the difference very well by now-- that "psychics" claim to be highly intuitive and able to tell you about your past, present and future...while "psychic mediums" say they are able to communicate with the deceased.

Its not the first time this distinction has come up in discussion about mediums and psychics. I would have expected that he would have remembered what each was.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Thank you for clarifying that for Claus, RC.

Thank you for ...."ignoring" the question.... :rolleyes: Why would you even care what I understand? Must be my cologne...

Originally posted by Clancie
I would have certainly expected that he already understood the difference-- that "psychics" claim to be highly intuitive and able to tell you about your past, present and future...while "psychic mediums" say they are able to communicate with the deceased.

Thank you for - finally - answering one of the questions. It does raise the question of whether this is your own opinion, or you can point to some dictionary or something. There is also the question of whether your definitions really are different at all.

Originally posted by Clancie
I thought he would have remembered that.

That would be a little hard to do, since you refused to answer the question. But thanks, anyway.

Now, if you are going to post in this thread, could you address the issue?

[max]

thaiboxerken
I would expect a rep;y like that off a smart arse...dark cobra LOL....not

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Thank you for ...."ignoring" the question.... :rolleyes: Why would you even care what I understand? Must be my cologne...

Must be, Claus, since it surely is not your charm and/or diplomacy. :p

Thank you for - finally - answering one of the questions. It does raise the question of whether this is your own opinion, or you can point to some dictionary or something. There is also the question of whether your definitions really are different at all.

You're kidding, right? Finally answering one of the questions??? Oh Claus! What is it with you? The difference between an ordinary psychic and a psychic medium has been discussed over at tvtalkshows more than once, and you have definitely been a participant in those discussions.

The difference between a psychic and a medium is so very basic to the topic we have been discussing with you for well over a year now, that it boggles the mind to see that you are still so absolutely clueless. How is that even possible?

Is it willful ignorance? Selective memory? Some sort of learning disability? Or just a complete and utter inability to grasp this one very simple distinction? Seriously. I'm very curious as to how you could possibly have forgotten this, even though it has been explained to you before. Can you explain it to me?

With regard to what you said about me having suffered a recent personal loss, RC is correct when he told you that this is not true in my own case. I got interested in mediumship because once I saw it demonstrated on "CO" and other tv shows, I became very curious about the subject and began looking into it. Over two years later, and I still find it extremely intriguing......neo






]

[Ed]

Claus,

I think that if you checked out reasons religious participation you would find a parrelel. Death seems so final that the history of humanity seems to revolve around denial of that fact. If my wife or kids died, I would sure like to know that it was not, literally, the end. Religion, TV fakes, even going to places where you shared time with the departed are all mechanisms of denial if carried to an extreme (and are, IMHO, unhealthy).

In some ways these coping mechanisms are like taking vitamins: They might work but there is no perceptable harm so might as well do it.

Most people cope in whatever way works for them and then get on with their life. Those that don't have found a womb that will be protected at all costs, even to the extent of rational thought. That is the pity and why the frauds should burn in hell (see, religion does have some utility).

You might compare it (irrational belief) to a sexual rebound in the wake of a divorce. The "left" party needs reassurance of their attractiveness and might engage, for a time, in heightened sexual activity. Fine and good but that is not reality. Some small percentage, I suspect, never stop. Same sort of thing.

Grief can make people do some funny things, as can fear. One might fear death for themselves or for loved ones and turn to religion or mediums in advance of the event.

I think you are looking, Claus, for an answer to why humans are humans. It is not just silly beliefs in the paranormal.

Edit to add that guilt plays a part. Did I do enough when x was alive, I should have done y. Some of the "belief" structure, I am sure, is to obtain absolution. I bet that this is particularly the case when a kid dies. Think about it. You can ALWAYS pay more for more and different medical care. Did you? Was EVERY alternative explored? Were they really? You can't say that can you. You might have done more and if you had your child would still be alive. It is your fault, after all wasn't it? Well, it's too late now so all that is left is forgiveness. But death is final, is it not? Well, not necessarily.

And so it goes.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by max
thaiboxerken
I would expect a rep;y like that off a smart arse...dark cobra LOL....not


....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
You're kidding, right? Finally answering one of the questions??? Oh Claus! What is it with you? The difference between an ordinary psychic and a psychic medium has been discussed over at tvtalkshows more than once, and you have definitely been a participant in those discussions.

The difference between a psychic and a medium is so very basic to the topic we have been discussing with you for well over a year now, that it boggles the mind to see that you are still so absolutely clueless. How is that even possible?

Is it willful ignorance? Selective memory? Some sort of learning disability? Or just a complete and utter inability to grasp this one very simple distinction? Seriously. I'm very curious as to how you could possibly have forgotten this, even though it has been explained to you before. Can you explain it to me?

With regard to what you said about me having suffered a recent personal loss, RC is correct when he told you that this is not true in my own case. I got interested in mediumship because once I saw it demonstrated on "CO" and other tv shows, I became very curious about the subject and began looking into it. Over two years later, and I still find it extremely intriguing......neo


You are most welcome to point it out. Examples, please?

[Clancie]

Posted by neofight

The difference between an ordinary psychic and a psychic medium has been discussed over at tvtalkshows more than once, and you have definitely been a participant in those discussions.

The difference between a psychic and a medium is so very basic to the topic we have been discussing with you for well over a year now, that it boggles the mind to see that you are still so absolutely clueless. How is that even possible?
neo,

I agree. How is this possible? Or that he actually has the nerve to say this? (neo, quoting CFLarsen: Thank you for - finally - answering one of the questions). :confused:

Here is an excerpt from just one of the threads where someone (in this case, me) explained the difference to Claus (aka Cantata).
From "A Checklist for a Cold Reading Medium", TVTalkshows, JE forum

CFLarsen (Cantata):

I know you call them "mediums". If you want to separate "medium" from "psychic", then please tell me what the difference is.

What is the difference between a "psychic" and a "psychic medium"?


Clancie (Gryphon2):

Psychics don't claim to do that (spirit communication). Mediums (sometimes calling themselves "Psychic Mediums" because they are both psychic AND able to do mediumship) are differentiated from psychics because of their ability to communicate with the dead.

I've answered your question about it before, and now three times here. I don't know how to make it any clearer.


CFLarsen (Cantata):

So, a psychic medium speaks with the dead. What does a psychic do, then?


Clancie:

The simplest definition is someone with the ability to see, hear and feel by use of senses other than the 5 natural senses. If, in using these "psychic senses", they are able to communicate with the dead, they are a psychic medium.

But, as you already know, there are many things that fall into "seeing, hearing and feeling in ways other than the five sense" that do not involve mediumship skills (precognition, levitation, etc. etc.)

Psychic readings tell people about their lives, past, present and future. They are not for the purpose of providing ADC's.

And, I'm sure you'll remember before we digress onto the subject of psychics, that my interest in psychic phenonmena is limited to mediumship only.


CFLarsen (Cantata):

There is one overriding factor in all psychic readings, be it with the dead or concerning the sitter's life.

And that is the will to believe. People who are being read are usually already convinced that the medium (see? I got it right!) can do what heshe claims. Those who are not, can be persuaded by hype and a few lucky guesses.

From TVTalkshows: "Checklist for a Cold Reading Medium" (http://tvtalkshows.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=26470)

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You are most welcome to point it out. Examples, please?

Point out what, exactly? Are you saying that in all this time of debating mediumship, you are not too embarrassed to admit to us all that you did not know that only mediums claim to communicate with the dead, and that ordinary psychics do not make this claim?

You do not recall ever hearing us explain to you that "All mediums are psychics, but not all psychics are mediums?" Is that what you are claiming, Claus??????? ......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Clancie

neo,

I agree. How is this possible? Here is an excerpt from just one of the threads where this was explained to Claus (aka Cantata). [/b]

Thanks so much for digging up one of the relevant exchanges, Clancie. As you can see, I posted my previous post only one minute after you posted yours. lol

As we knew, Claus already was given this information on more than one occasion. Now, I don't believe that he is a dolt, so why does he do these things? Claus? Any explanation that you'd care to offer? :rolleyes: ......neo

[Ed]

Do these distinctions really make any difference? Are we not really talking about marketing top spin? Surely JE will talk to dead people, give advice about the future, talk to dead pets, infants, whatever.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

I see you are too dishonest to include a very crucial line of mine.

You claimed I had said:
There is one overriding factor in all psychic readings, be it with the dead or concerning the sitter's life.

And that is the will to believe. People who are being read are usually already convinced that the medium (see? I got it right!) can do what heshe claims. Those who are not, can be persuaded by hype and a few lucky guesses.

However, you "left out" the line just before:

Oh, I have plenty of definitions in my library. However, very few seem to agree - which is why I ask.

Why did you leave out that line? That's where I make it clear that the reason I ask this question is because I can't seem to find what distinguishes one from another.

Now....Clancie and neofight: where else can I find this definition of yours? Is it your own, or is there a dictionary definition somewhere?

If you merely have invented it yourselves, then fine: That only means that you invent excuses to be able to explain the difference between Sylvia Browne from John Edward. A pretty poor excuse, too.

If you have not, then I would love to see it.

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Clancie,

I see you are too dishonest to include a very crucial line of mine.

You claimed I had said:

However, you "left out" the line just before:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I have plenty of definitions in my library. However, very few seem to agree - which is why I ask.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why did you leave out that line? That's where I make it clear that the reason I ask this question is because I can't seem to find what distinguishes one from another.

Clancie is not being dishonest, Claus. You've asked what the difference is, and you've been told. More than once.

Now....Clancie and neofight: where else can I find this definition of yours? Is it your own, or is there a dictionary definition somewhere?

If you merely have invented it yourselves, then fine: That only means that you invent excuses to be able to explain the difference between Sylvia Browne from John Edward. A pretty poor excuse, too.

If you have not, then I would love to see it.

How utterly absurd to even suggest that we've invented the definition of "psychic medium" Claus. Whatever are you smoking? It's pretty common knowledge what a medium is. How can you not know this after debating mediumship for so long?

If you want advice on job-related matters, or on your love life, etc., you go to see a psychic. If you want to make contact with someone who has died, you go to see a psychic medium. I, like Clancie, would have absolutely no interest in going to see a psychic.

Here, a quote from someone other than Clancie or myself......

Medium vs. Psychic - a psychic attunes to the
vibrations of the universe, a medium attunes to these same vibrations but also attunes to spirit entities. Not
all psychics are mediums.

http://www.direct2spirit.com/pageseven.html

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Clancie is not being dishonest, Claus. You've asked what the difference is, and you've been told. More than once.

Yes, she is. By leaving out that little sentence, she deliberately obscures my intent.

Originally posted by neofight
How utterly absurd to even suggest that we've invented the definition of "psychic medium" Claus. Whatever are you smoking? It's pretty common knowledge what a medium is. How can you not know this after debating mediumship for so long?

Spare us that condescending tone, neofight. Do not even attempt to determine what "common knowledge" is. Do not attempt to determine what I - or anyone else - know. You are not the sole arbiter of what "common knowledge" is.

Unless you want to pose as an absolute expert on paranormal phenomena. Do you?

Originally posted by neofight
If you want advice on job-related matters, or on your love life, etc., you go to see a psychic. If you want to make contact with someone who has died, you go to see a psychic medium. I, like Clancie, would have absolutely no interest in going to see a psychic.

Why not? Because you feel they don't work? Or are you two merely so morbid that you are only interested in dead people?

Originally posted by neofight
Medium vs. Psychic - a psychic attunes to the
vibrations of the universe, a medium attunes to these same vibrations but also attunes to spirit entities. Not
all psychics are mediums.

http://www.direct2spirit.com/pageseven.html


Please explain what "vibrations of the universe" means.
Please explain what it means to "attune" to these vibrations.
Please explain what "spirit entities" cover.
Is this the generally accepted explanation? Please point to other references that verify this.


May I remind you that the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of a medium is "An intervening substance through which something else is transmitted or carried on"? I don't see any difference between a psychic telling fortunes and a psychic (medium) telling you what your grandma said.

[CFLarsen]

Webster

Psychic
1 : of or relating to the psyche : PSYCHOGENIC
2 : lying outside the sphere of physical science or knowledge : immaterial, moral, or spiritual in origin or force
3 : sensitive to nonphysical or supernatural forces and influences : marked by extraordinary or mysterious sensitivity, perception, or understanding


Medium
1 a : something in a middle position b : a middle condition or degree : MEAN
2 : a means of effecting or conveying something: as a (1) : a substance regarded as the means of transmission of a force or effect (2) : a surrounding or enveloping substance (3) : the tenuous material (as gas and dust) in space that exists outside large agglomerations of matter (as stars) <interstellar medium> b plural usually media (1) : a channel or system of communication, information, or entertainment -- compare MASS MEDIUM (2) : a publication or broadcast that carries advertising (3) : a mode of artistic expression or communication (4) : something (as a magnetic disk) on which information may be stored c : GO-BETWEEN, INTERMEDIARY d plural mediums : an individual held to be a channel of communication between the earthly world and a world of spirits e : material or technical means of artistic expression
3 a : a condition or environment in which something may function or flourish b plural media (1) : a nutrient system for the artificial cultivation of cells or organisms and especially bacteria (2) : a fluid or solid in which organic structures are placed (as for preservation or mounting) c : a liquid with which pigment is mixed by a painter
usage see MEDIA

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Webster


Medium
1 a : something in a middle position b : a middle condition or degree : MEAN
2 : a means of effecting or conveying something: as a (1) : a substance regarded as the means of transmission of a force or effect (2) : a surrounding or enveloping substance (3) : the tenuous material (as gas and dust) in space that exists outside large agglomerations of matter (as stars) <interstellar medium> b plural usually media (1) : a channel or system of communication, information, or entertainment -- compare MASS MEDIUM (2) : a publication or broadcast that carries advertising (3) : a mode of artistic expression or communication (4) : something (as a magnetic disk) on which information may be stored c : GO-BETWEEN, INTERMEDIARY d plural mediums : an individual held to be a channel of communication between the earthly world and a world of spirits e : material or technical means of artistic expression
3 a : a condition or environment in which something may function or flourish b plural media (1) : a nutrient system for the artificial cultivation of cells or organisms and especially bacteria (2) : a fluid or solid in which organic structures are placed (as for preservation or mounting) c : a liquid with which pigment is mixed by a painter
usage see MEDIA

4 Neither rare nor well done

[Clancie]

Oh, all right, Claus. It's just not fair to neo that she has to be the only one to deal with your incredible attempt to "play dumb" about what a psychic medium is vs. a psychic.

And, speaking of dishonesty....don't you find it dishonest that I defined the difference for you at TVTalk and yet you still included the question here, in "Questions Clancie does not want to answer"? (No surprise to me, though, since that list is comprised of numerous misrepresentations of my views--and/or questions I've already addressed, just like this one).

You ask why I left out your one line. Well, isn't it obvious that I shortened the post (including my comment that prompted that one line) to highlight the point that was specifically related to this thread--namely, that you have already been told this distinction before--and claimed you understood it!

Like neo, I am dumbfounded that you have been debating mediumship all this time without, apparently, knowing what it is well enough to distinguish it from "simply being psychic"! Astonishing, Claus! Incredible!

[Clancie]

btw, the line I left out (of my original post--was the line you were responding to--which was this: "Well, Cantata, while its difficult for me to imagine that with your home library--and Internet access--you really need ME to provide a definition of "psychic" for you...okay, I'll go along with it, for now." Then I proceeded to define the difference for you...again.

After all, any rudimentary Internet search turns up many sites with explanations about what a psychic medium is, as opposed to "being a psychic". Here are some I found for you in a search that lasted under five minutes.

Online ex. 1 (http://members.tripod.com/universal-love/psychics1.htm)

online ex #2 (http://www.psychics.co.uk/mediums.htm)

online ex. #3 (http://www.agentletouch.co.uk/mediumship/medic.htm)

online ex. #4 (http://www.nikkilayne.com/generic.html?pid=24)

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Yes, she is. By leaving out that little sentence, she deliberately obscures my intent.

No, Claus. Your intent is perfectly clear to many of us. Your intent is to attack, harass and annoy the crap out of anyone who disagrees with you. You are quite transparent, so don't worry about us not "getting" your intent. We get it. You're skating on thin ice with me here, and I doubt that I'll be interacting with you much longer if you can't behave yourself.

Spare us that condescending tone, neofight. Do not even attempt to determine what "common knowledge" is. Do not attempt to determine what I - or anyone else - know. You are not the sole arbiter of what "common knowledge" is.

No, Claus. You spare us your usual bologna. You asked a question. You got an answer. Today was not the first time you asked it, and it was not the first time you got an answer. Please, stop acting like a jerk.

Why not? Because you feel they don't work? Or are you two merely so morbid that you are only interested in dead people?[b]

I thought I just asked you to please stop acting like a jerk! Do you have any control over that whatsoever?

[b]I don't see any difference between a psychic telling fortunes and a psychic (medium) telling you what your grandma said.

No, I suppose you wouldn't. Actually, if you had ever taken the time to read "One Last Time", the way you said that you had, you would have had an excellent account of precisely what the difference between a mere psychic and a psychic medium would consist of, because JE goes into some detail about how he made the transition from psychic to medium. But of course, you knew that, right? I mean, you did read the book after all, didn't you? :rolleyes: Pssst! Pages 15-29, just in case you are interested, and a bonus URL to boot, which describes the two terms as well. What's the matter, your search engine die?

http://members.tripod.com/universal-love/psychics1.htm

[Loki]

Claus,

Definitions of words are just "agreed upon" meanings. They change over time, and not everyone will agree to the "commonly accepted" definition. Just try to get a definition of "Atheist" agreed upon here on the JREF!

It seems clear to me that *the vast majority* of people, believers or otherwise, that discuss these "JE" threads would understand and agree upon the differences between "Medium" and "Psychic". "Mediums" are a specific subset of "Psychics", dealing with ADC.

How do I know the meaning of these words? Because veryone I've ever seen use them (except, perhaps, for you) uses them in that way.

What point is there in arguing over this? If Neo, Clancie, RC, and every other believer (sorry RC, "Uncommited but interested bystander") use these terms consistently, and I understand esxactly the context in which they use them, then what's the point again?

[asthmatic camel]

I've often wondered why believers consult mediums. Unless one assumes that consciousness does indeed exist independently from the brain, then I find it difficult to understand why one person is able to communicate with the dead while another is not.

Have any studies been carried out showing a structural difference between the brains of the "paranormally gifted" and those of us who lack this "talent" ?

The words wishful and thinking unaccountably spring to mind; perhaps I am a psychic after all.

Regards,

AC.

[RC]

Originally posted by Loki
(sorry RC, "Uncommited but interested bystander") use these terms consistently, and I understand esxactly the context in which they use them, then what's the point again?

There is no point, Loki, but I do appreciate your chiming in.

I like your label for me. I'll just call myself an "UBIB" for now. But still a very strong believer in ADC (communication between spirit and loved one without a medium).

And...get ready...the Mac is heading for Australia in February. You heard it here first!!

[CFLarsen]

Loki,

It may be my understanding of English, of course. Sometimes, you English-speaking people refer to something we non-English-speakers don't understand.

However, I don't think it is the case here. You see, the distinction between a "psychic" and a "psychic medium" is used by both neofight and Clancie to describe what Sylvia Browne does (whom they have nothing but disdain for) and what John Edward does (whom they both revere to the point of fanaticism).

Sylvia Browne is - by their definition - a psychic. She does foretell the future.

John Edward is - by their definition - a psychic medium. He does talk to dead people.

However, JE is also - again by their definition - a psychic. He has referred to things that have not yet happened. And Sylvia is also - again by their definition - a psychic medium. She does talk to dead people.

You see where the confusion comes in? When is JE a psychic and when is he a psychic medium? There seems to be no distinct line to draw, the borders are very fuzzy, depending on the circumstances. JE has foretold what happens in the future in the middle of what should be "psychic mediumship". He has also channeled (another term for mediumship) people, even animals, who weren't even dead!

I don't doubt that there are psychics who claim to be exclusively either one or the other. But in this case, Sylvia and JE, both are both psychics as well as psychic mediums.

And yet, neofight can say "I, like Clancie, would have absolutely no interest in going to see a psychic."

That's another reason for my puzzlement: Clancie has gone to see Brian Hurst for a reading. Brian describes himself as both a medium and a psychic. In fact, that's how he started out:

I was on a vacation at the age of 11 or 12, I think in Great Yarmouth—it was on the east coast of England. And I was digging in the sand with my bucket and spade, you know, making sand castles. And this little lady in a canvas chair called me over. She said, "Little boy, little boy, I would like to speak to you. When you grow up, you’re going to have some very strange things happen to you. You’re going to see things that other people don’t see, and hear things that other people don’t hear. You must’t think you’re mad. You may think you are mad, but you are not mad. I am telling you about this, and in the future you will think of my words, that I have told you of this," she said. And her husband was asleep in the chair with a newspaper over his face not listening to anything she was talking to me. And it seems like she was trying to tell me that I would have some psychic ability.

T: Who was that lady?

B: I don’t know who she was. She said she was a medium. I didn’t know what a "medium" was. She said, "You may not understand this, but I am a medium, and I have to tell you about this. You have lights floating around over your head." She told me I had spirit lights around me. And so, that’s what she could see.

An Excerpt from the Inrterview with Brian E. Hurst by Tatiana Elmanovich (http://www.spiritcommunicator.com/communicators/bhurst.htm)
(emphasis mine)


So, even one of the mediums that Clancie swears by, Brian Hurst, mixes the terms. He has a medium (someone who speaks to dead people) foretell the future for him (something a psychic does).

If an expert like Brian Hurst can't get it right, who can? Hence my confusion.

So, this is not exactly a moot point. To understand why neofight and Clancie believes that JE is real (and Sylvia is not), we need to look at what reasons they give to tell them apart. It is very clear that the terms are used interchangeably, depending on who says what and when.

Ergo, one of their reasons to tell Sylvia and JE apart - psychic vs. psychic medium - looks very dodgy.

Clancie,

Thanks for taking me off "Ignore" once again. You need to update your sig. BTW, my PM inbox is clear - you can re-send whatever you wanted to tell/ask me.

neofight,

You might want to abandon that schoolmarm-attitude.

[Clancie]

Loki,

Thanks for trying. I can only think that Claus (much like Bill on the other thread) is being intentionally obtuse for some reason I can't understand (though neo may have pinpointed it perfectly).

Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but it is just inconceivable to me that, after all this time, he doesn't understand the distinction, or how it applies to a reading.

[Clancie]

Claus,

When you go see a psychic, they don't contact the deceased for you. When you see someone who specializes in mediumship, they concentrate on spirit communication and the messages they bring through, even of a advisory/predictive nature, are attributed to spirit.

Although "psychic mediums" can get information psychically as well as through spirit communication, they usually will ask the customer which kind of reading they are interested in, unless it is clear in advance (like JE) that they don't specialize.

Nevertheless, Claus, your original question was "What's the difference?" and the difference is very simple: mediumship (whether combined with psychic reading or not) is always defined by spirit communication, that is to say, deceased energies coming through that are connected to the sitter. Very simple, really.

And I don't know how long you'll be off "Ignore". Maybe only for this one issue or just for this a.m. I won't rush to change the sig line. Sorry, but I find it very stressful to have to deal with your badgering, twisting my words, etc. I don't know if its intentional or not, but it seems so. And who needs added aggravation and hostility in their life, you know?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
Loki,

Thanks for trying. I can only think that Claus (much like Bill on the other thread) is being intentionally obtuse for some reason I can't understand (though neo may have pinpointed it perfectly).

Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but it is just inconceivable to me that, after all this time, he doesn't understand the distinction, or how it applies to a reading.

I find myself somewhere between Loki and Claus on this one.

On the one hand it can seem to be a point about not very much - after all what does it matter what we call someone who communicates with the dead?

However on the other hand I do see it could be an important distinction since "believers" state there is an important distinction that has something to do with their reasons for thinking a particular medium can communicate with the dead.

(Have to add mind you that the evidence does seem to favour the conclusion that mediums and/or psychics themselves don't see the black and white division between the two that some "believers" do.)

And as a cheeky end note if Loki is right then I don't suppose that anyone objects to John Edward being known as a necromancer? ;)

[Clancie]

Darat,

Now you've got me interested. How could it be confusing?

Mediumship = spirit communication, nothing more. The other "heightened sensory information" that comes to psychics varies and encompasses a variety of possible skills (from telepathy to telling sitters about their life--past, present, and future), but the distinction with mediumship is always....is there spirit communication or not? It seems so straightforward that I can't understand where the confusion lies. :confused:

And psychic mediums are....mediums (i.e. communicate with spirit) who are also able to use their senses in any of the recognized "psychic" ways.
Posted by Darat

(Have to add mind you that the evidence does seem to favour the conclusion that mediums and/or psychics themselves don't see the black and white division between the two that some "believers" do.)
They don't? Where does anyone say that mediumship is other than "spirit communication"?
Posted by Darat

However on the other hand I do see it could be an important distinction since "believers" state there is an important distinction that has something to do with their reasons for thinking a particular medium can communicate with the dead.
They do. Where?
Posted by Darat

And as a cheeky end note if Loki is right then I don't suppose that anyone objects to John Edward being known as a necromancer?
:eek:
Darat, Darat...you know perfectly well I don't agree with that! "Cheeky", indeed! :)

After all, "Necromancy" is the conjuring up of spirits for the purpose of foretelling the future, etc.

Mediumship is spirit communication in order to demonstrate survival of consciousness. JE does not claim to "raise the dead" in order to get them to accomplish certain tasks for sitters, or in order to predict their future. :con2:

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Thank you for your reply.

I don't really understand how a message from a spirit about the future should not be considered psychic...ship. Who gives a psychic information about the future, then?

In the definitions so far, I can find a distinction between "future messages" and "spirit messages". I didn't see the "spirit messages about the future" anywhere. Where, specifically, is that described as one or the other?

Is this perhaps a new definition?

I take it you don't want to acknowledge that JE can switch from being a psychic medium to a psychic at moment's notice, then?

Do you acknowledge that Brian Hurst confuses the terms?

I think you are turning it on its head here. How come being a psychic medium is suddenly more encompassing than being a psychic?

Before, a psychic medium could do a specific part of what a psychic could do. Now, it's the other way around??

I think I was right: Confusion about this abounds!!

What is the difference of "raising the dead" to communicating with them, and what JE does?

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

Do you acknowledge that Brian Hurst confuses the terms?
He was very clearly understood I was there for spiriit communication and not for a psychic reading.
Posted by CFLarsen

I think you are turning it on its head here. How come being a psychic medium is suddenly more encompassing than being a psychic?
Suddenly? Haven't we always said that "psychic mediums" are "psychic + medium"? I think Loki was right. What's your point?


Before, a psychic medium could do a specific part of what a psychic could do. Now, it's the other way around??
Uh...no. :confused:


I think I was right: Confusion about this abounds!!
Well, you -do- seem confused about it, I'll give you that. To me, it seems consistent...to the point of being dull.


What is the difference of "raising the dead" to communicating with them, and what JE does?
As I understand the purpose of necromancy it is to raise the dead specifically to fortell the future and/or to -do- something for the sitter. Quite different from a medium's purpose: to demonstrate survival of consciousness.

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

How come being a psychic medium is suddenly more encompassing than being a psychic?

Suddenly? Claus, mediumship has always been understood to encompass more than mere psychic abilities. From where do you get these mistaken ideas?

Before, a psychic medium could do a specific part of what a psychic could do. Now, it's the other way around??


No, Claus. It is you who has gotten it backwards. Remember...."All mediums are psychics, but not all psychics are mediums?" :rolleyes: Mediums have always had psychic abilities. The difference is that in addition to their highly developed intuitive (psychic) abilities, they also receive telepathic messages directly from those who have crossed over. That is the distinction. Ordinary psychics cannot do this. Does that help? We keep saying the same things over and over again.

And yet, neofight can say "I, like Clancie, would have absolutely no interest in going to see a psychic."

Exactly. I plan my own life, make my own decisions together with my family, and I don't feel the need to have some stranger do it for me. You have a problem with that? Do you go to psychics for advice on the way you live your life?

the distinction between a "psychic" and a "psychic medium" is used by both neofight and Clancie to describe what Sylvia Browne does (whom they have nothing but disdain for) and what John Edward does (whom they both revere to the point of fanaticism).

I think you might be hard-pressed to find much that I have written about Sylvia Browne at all, Claus, critical or otherwise, since I really do not feel that I am familiar enough with her work to either endorse her, or to allege that she is a fraud.

I think I've said that much of the negative reaction that she gets from people stems from the fact that at times her personality and/or attitude leaves a bit to be desired. I've never seen her do readings like I've seen JE, JVP or GA do, so again, I'm on the fence about her. I've only read one of her books, and can't say I was interested in reading her others. Her psychic predictions are not too impressive imo, but I'm not too interested in those sorts of things anyhow.......neo

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

I think you really need to think this over once again. I fear it is, once again, your logical skills that fail you.

Your first link had this to say:

Psychics:
"To the majority of the population, the word psychic is used as a general term in reference to those who perform psychic readings for people. More definitively, psychics are those individuals with metaphysical skills, abilities or senses."

Mediums:
"Mediums, or Channels, are those who are able to use their psychic abilities to communicate with the Other Side, with spirits and/or with other entities. All mediums are psychic, but not all psychics are mediums."

See the last sentence? Let's try to use other terms:

All humans are primates, but not all primates are humans. That is true, correct?

Let's see if we can apply it the other way around:

All primates are humans, but not all humans are primates. That's not true. We can't do that.

So, a "psychic medium" is a subset of being a "psychic". Not the other way around. Like you now claim.

So, yes, there is very much confusion here, Clancie.

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

All humans are primates, but not all primates are humans. That is true, correct?
uh,huh.
Posted by CFLarsen

Let's see if we can apply it the other way around:

All primates are humans, but not all humans are primates. That's not true. We can't do that.
Uh, huh.
Posted by CFLarsen
So, a "psychic medium" is a subset of being a "psychic". Not the other way around. Like you now claim.

So, yes, there is very much confusion here, Clancie.
Uh,huh.

P.S. "All mediums are psychic, but not all psychics are mediums" still stands and makes perfect, logically consistent sense, Claus. As you know perfectly well, right? Just like the example above, "All humans are primates, but not all primates are human." :confused: Your example refutes....nothing. In fact, it parallels what neo and I are saying (again, for your benefit, "All mediums are psychic, but not all psychics are mediums).
Posted by CFLarsen

I fear it is, once again, your logical skills that fail you.
:rolleyes: Two completely unprovoked insults from you...already! in less than the hour or two you've been off "Ignore"!!!!

Nope, no need to change the sig line.

This topic has been exhausted anyway. So...back you go! (One of these days you may learn to debate without the nastiness, but after a year and a half of being subjected to it, I doubt it will be any time soon....)

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Please. Honestly. What game is this you are playing? I did not insult you in any way. You know you have problems with logic.

You agree with everything I say, when I walk you through the logical stuff.

You agree with me, Clancie!

Then, you merely brush that aside, and still claim that you are right. And claim you have been insulted, and I'm back on ignore.

Your arguments have been shown to be logically false. You agreed with this. You still maintained you were right. And now....

Don't look so hard for things to be insulted by.

[neofight]

Try it this way, Claus. "All surgeons are doctors, but not all doctors are surgeons." Does that help?

How about this one? "All cognac is brandy, but not all brandy is cognac". Any luck yet?

One more! "All cynics are skeptics, but not all skeptics are cynics".

Surely one of those might help drive the point home for you, no? :D ....neo

[CFLarsen]

neofight,

According to the links that Clancie gave, you cannot be a medium without being a psychic.

"Psychics" is a general term. "Medium" is when someone use their psychic ability to do something specific.

According to this definition, it is not possible to be a medium without being a psychic.

Either the definition must be wrong, or you and Clancie are wrong. Which is it?

[CFLarsen]

neofight, Clancie,

Let's do this graphically.

You want to argue that:

"All mediums are psychic, but not all psychics are mediums"
http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/pm02.gif

and you use the equivalent:

"All surgeons are doctors, but not all doctors are surgeons"
http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/pm04.gif

Right?

What you are saying is that there can be surgeons that are not doctors.

That's where your argument breaks down.

This is what it really means:

"All mediums are psychic, but not all psychics are mediums"
http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/pm01.gif

and you use the equivalent:

"All surgeons are doctors, but not all doctors are surgeons"
http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/pm03.gif

[voidx]

This is an easy question. Its a very fundamental fear of humans in my mind. The idea that we are here for a reason, that we have a higher purpose. That we are not just a biological occurance, and that we do not in fact just rot and die when we cease to live. Everything else is a search, a hope, a validation to prove this fear, that we serve no higher purpose, wrong. Even if logic seems to state its not possible, even if there is no solid proof in its existence, since it cannot be ruled out, people cling to its possibility for it extends our souls beyond the small time we live on this earth. For others its a simple curiousity. They are skeptical of the claim, and for amusement, or for serious debunking, they attend to see what it is the medium can do that is so paranormally miraculous, or to just identify the same old tricks of the trade like cold-reading etc. Everyone has their own reason, but for people who believe, or would like to believe, the above to me, seems to cover it all.

My grandmother passed away this past week and this last weekend I drove down, as did all her immediate family, and we mourned her passing. We cried, and we grieved at having lost her, and memories would bring back those emotions with renewed, and at least initially, painful strength. But as the first few hours passed, so did all the tears and we all laughed and shared our memories of my grandmother and her quirky ways and soon we were celebrating the life she lived, and the time she had here with us and vowed to stay in better touch because of the realization of how short our time can be. This to me is the normal process of grieving. I do not believe my grandmother's spirit still exists, except in the hearts and minds of those who knew her, and will remember her and each in their own way will pass on those memories of her to their children and friends. It is in this way she will continue to live on in some sense. But as time goes on, and generations pass, memories of her will fade and disappear with the deaths of those that held them, and she'll end up a name on a family tree perhaps, and then eventually, given enough time, it will be as though she didn't exist at all. But I knew she existed and I remember, and I have my memories of her, and anything I forgot to say to her, or share with her is sadly, forever to be left unsaid and unshared. She's gone and my opportunity to share with her anything I might not have, is also gone. I think this is also a normal, and healthy part of the grieving process. That you must realize that you cannot talk to them anymore, that they are in fact gone, and all you can do is learn the lesson from their death and say and share things with the people still with you that perhaps you haven't. To me this is the simplicity of life and while I understand what drives other people to posit deeper meanings in life and to our existence, I don't see why it needs to be anymore complex, or beautiful as this.

This rant is obviously spurred by my grandmothers recent passing, but to those in search of communication with their relatives or loved ones I would say that while I sympathize with your personal reasons, painful as they might be for wanting to do so, it is in the end, the healthy and realistic view to realize your loved ones are gone, and that any unfinished business you had with them, you must resolve within yourself. For regardless whether you acknowledge or believe this or not, you won't be able to move on properly unless you do.

Also please don't hesistate to comment if you have an opinion on anything I've said. I'm quite at peace with my grandmothers death.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by voidx
This is an easy question. Its a very fundamental fear of humans in my mind. The idea that we are here for a reason, that we have a higher purpose. That we are not just a biological occurance, and that we do not in fact just rot and die when we cease to live. Everything else is a search, a hope, a validation to prove this fear, that we serve no higher purpose, wrong. Even if logic seems to state its not possible, even if there is no solid proof in its existence, since it cannot be ruled out, people cling to its possibility for it extends our souls beyond the small time we live on this earth. For others its a simple curiousity. They are skeptical of the claim, and for amusement, or for serious debunking, they attend to see what it is the medium can do that is so paranormally miraculous, or to just identify the same old tricks of the trade like cold-reading etc. Everyone has their own reason, but for people who believe, or would like to believe, the above to me, seems to cover it all.

My grandmother passed away this past week and this last weekend I drove down, as did all her immediate family, and we mourned her passing. We cried, and we grieved at having lost her, and memories would bring back those emotions with renewed, and at least initially, painful strength. But as the first few hours passed, so did all the tears and we all laughed and shared our memories of my grandmother and her quirky ways and soon we were celebrating the life she lived, and the time she had here with us and vowed to stay in better touch because of the realization of how short our time can be. This to me is the normal process of grieving. I do not believe my grandmother's spirit still exists, except in the hearts and minds of those who knew her, and will remember her and each in their own way will pass on those memories of her to their children and friends. It is in this way she will continue to live on in some sense. But as time goes on, and generations pass, memories of her will fade and disappear with the deaths of those that held them, and she'll end up a name on a family tree perhaps, and then eventually, given enough time, it will be as though she didn't exist at all. But I knew she existed and I remember, and I have my memories of her, and anything I forgot to say to her, or share with her is sadly, forever to be left unsaid and unshared. She's gone and my opportunity to share with her anything I might not have, is also gone. I think this is also a normal, and healthy part of the grieving process. That you must realize that you cannot talk to them anymore, that they are in fact gone, and all you can do is learn the lesson from their death and say and share things with the people still with you that perhaps you haven't. To me this is the simplicity of life and while I understand what drives other people to posit deeper meanings in life and to our existence, I don't see why it needs to be anymore complex, or beautiful as this.

This rant is obviously spurred by my grandmothers recent passing, but to those in search of communication with their relatives or loved ones I would say that while I sympathize with your personal reasons, painful as they might be for wanting to do so, it is in the end, the healthy and realistic view to realize your loved ones are gone, and that any unfinished business you had with them, you must resolve within yourself. For regardless whether you acknowledge or believe this or not, you won't be able to move on properly unless you do.

Also please don't hesistate to comment if you have an opinion on anything I've said. I'm quite at peace with my grandmothers death.

voidx,

My condolences on the loss of your grandmother.

My feeling is that people use various means to resolve their grief, and I think that the sheer passage of time is probably the most effective healer in the majority of cases. I think a healthy outcome is one in which an individual can be relatively happy in going on with his or her life, and life becomes generally livable again. I think this is a process that seems for many to happen whether they believe in an afterlife or not, although I do think that a person's beliefs can sometimes speed up or slow down the process.

If the dead continued to exist in some fashion, and if there are or were mediums who could really communicate with them, my main interest in them would be to see if they could be developed to the point of providing reliable communication on demand, so that in a sense the separation of death would be thwarted. I can't see that I'd be interested in using them to resolve grief. I've been to several mediums in the past out of curiosity and not to resolve grief. I've lost my share of loved ones, and my sometimes intense grief has resolved itself over time and without any inner certainty that my loved ones are still living in an afterlife.

Steve Grenard has posted that he visited a trance medium in his area who was 100% accurate and spoke in the first person as his deceased loved one, and that it was in some sense like his loved one was talking to him. I have no idea what the explanation of Steve's experience is, and that particular medium is not one I've visited. People might speculate, depending on their outlook, that his experience was, on one end of the spectrum, completely fabricated, or, on the other end, a genuine hour-long conversation he had with his deceased loved one through a rarely gifted woman. I suppose such an experience would have potential to hasten the natural resolution of grief, but my interest in it, if it could be shown to be true, would be that it would hint at the possibilities of a new communications system.

But, as I've pointed out before, none of the mediums I've seen in action have in my opinion given any evidence of psychic ability, let alone the ability to communicate with the dead. And even though I've read some about famous mediums of the past and how they were investigated, I still have not espoused a belief in spirit communication. I *have* developed a tentative belief that two of these mediums, namely Mrs. Piper and Mrs. Garrett, at times exhibited anomalous cognitive abilities, but it would still be a long way for me to go from that point to believing in an afterlife and that certain mediums are in touch with it. And my opinions about Piper and Garrette could well change for better or worse as I learn more. I think that this often happens in many cases, as seen in some of the recent threads on this board.

But hopefully I'll continue to read and look into this. It seems very interesting to me, if only as an opportunity to observe how we humans react to each other and the things that are claimed about our existence.

Mike

[Clancie]

Hi voidx,

I'm sorry to hear of your grandmother's death, but I'm glad that your family experienced the grieving process in such a positive and supportive way.

I don't know if you feel believers don't do that, too, or if maybe you are just feeling philosophical and sharing your thoughts about death and grief in general. I find that often happens when someone close to me dies and I'm suddenly forced to stop and really think about mortality--not only theirs, but my own as well.
Posted by voidx

I do not believe my grandmother's spirit still exists, except in the hearts and minds of those who knew her, and will remember her and each in their own way will pass on those memories of her to their children and friends.
Well, you may be 100% correct about this, but I do notice that you used the word "believe". I think that was an appropriate word, too, because you may feel pretty confident of your view, but really, we don't actually know what happens after death. You know Shakespeare..."the undiscovered country"....

Death may, indeed, be exactly as it appears to us--totally and completely the end of us in every respect. Or...there may be something of us that survives the physical death. The point is, we really don't know.

Posted by voidx

That you must realize that you cannot talk to them anymore, that they are in fact gone, and all you can do is learn the lesson from their death and say and share things with the people still with you that perhaps you haven't. To me this is the simplicity of life and while I understand what drives other people to posit deeper meanings in life and to our existence, I don't see why it needs to be anymore complex, or beautiful as this.

I remember reading Anne Druyan describing the last moments with Carl Sagan when they looked at each other and realized that "this wonderful journey together was over forever" (or words to that effect).

Well, some people believe in and accept the finality of death. Others feel there are reasons to think otherwise (many things that do not fit "the end is the end is the end" scenario...And others...are just...still not sure.

[thaiboxerken]

Death may, indeed, be exactly as it appears to us--totally and completely the end of us in every respect. Or...there may be something of us that survives the physical death. The point is, we really don't know.

Being that our "being" or consciousness is a product of our brains... yes, we do know that death is the end.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by voidx
This is an easy question. Its a very fundamental fear of humans in my mind. The idea that we are here for a reason, that we have a higher purpose. That we are not just a biological occurance, and that we do not in fact just rot and die when we cease to live. Everything else is a search, a hope, a validation to prove this fear, that we serve no higher purpose, wrong. Even if logic seems to state its not possible, even if there is no solid proof in its existence, since it cannot be ruled out, people cling to its possibility for it extends our souls beyond the small time we live on this earth.

On page 262, in the concluding chapter of his book Mediumship and Survival: A Century of Investigations, Alan Gauld writes: "Many people, indeed, do not require, or perhaps wish for, clear answers. ..." And then he quotes this verse:

Oh, easy creed
That our beloved ones are not lost indeed
But, somewhere far and fainter, live secure,
While yet they plead
With voices heard in visions live and pure,
With touch upon the hand, that they endure,
Only withdrawn!

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[b]Being that our "being" or consciousness is a product of our brains... yes, we do know that death is the end.

thaiboxerken,

I bet Interesting Ian would strongly disagree with you on that! :)

Mike

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Mike D.


thaiboxerken,

I bet Interesting Ian would strongly disagree with you on that! :)

Mike

So would most believers, ignoring facts that contradict their beliefs is key to their belief systems.

[Clancie]

Posted by thaiboxerken

Being that our "being" or consciousness is a product of our brains... yes, we do know that death is the end.

....So would most believers (disagree with the above), ignoring facts that contradict their beliefs is key to their belief systems.
Please post references, tbk, where scientific studies have conclusively demonstrated your "fact". I will definitely be open to changing my mind, if the "facts" you have, the reputable scientific research, does indeed support your above claim of indisputable "fact".

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Spare us that condescending tone, neofight.:id:

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
neofight, Clancie,

Let's do this graphically.

You want to argue that:

"All mediums are psychic, but not all psychics are mediums"
http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/pm02.gif Claus, is this simply a language thing?

Because you are correctly quoting them, then putting a graphic under it which does NOT represent what they said!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Claus, is this simply a language thing?

Because you are correctly quoting them, then putting a graphic under it which does NOT represent what they said!

No? Don't they wish to argue that being a medium is something more than being psychic?

There has to be something outside the "psychics" circle, right?

But this contradicts the "All mediums are psychic, but not all psychics are mediums" claim.

I hope it's clearer now.

[Ceinwyn]

I tend to agree with Ed. Remember him? He posted waaay, waay up top of this page (that I'm viewing).

I tend to think of it differently though, more like: which is more poisonous, strychnine or arsenic?

Both taken in small doses do not do much harm. However, too much of either and you're in big trouble.

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
than being psychic?

There has to be something outside the "psychics" circle, right?

But this contradicts the "All mediums are psychic, but not all psychics are mediums" claim.

I hope it's clearer now. It's clearer that you are misunderstanding them.

If you are graphing the populations of the two groups, then:

All mediums are psychic... - Mediums are a SUBSET of the Psychics population, and so the Mediums circle should be totally inside the Psychics circle.

...but not all Psychics are Mediums - So the Psychic circle should be larger than the Mediums circle.

Don't they wish to argue that being a medium is something more than being psychic?Not as far as they have stated so far.

If you take ANY claimed psychic ability (mind-reader, whatever), you could substitute it for "Medium", and the statement ("All (whatevers) are psychic, but not all psychics are (whatevers)".

It is like saying "All soccer players are athletes, but not all athletes are soccer players". Does this mean that being a soccer player is "something more than being an athlete?" No.

[Ceinwyn]

Apparently, mediums are taken more seriously than psychics, because they are "closer" to the sitter's problems.

See it as:
"I see a red scarf, it belonged to the victim"
vs.
"You have a Disney figurine in your bathroom"

Ego plays a huge part. Psychics are second-class because they deal with everyday stuff, crimes etc. Mediums are much more important because they deal with personal stuff, our loved ones and how they are doing. Most people would rather hear about their loved ones than to see a crime solved.

Of course, JMO etc.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RSLancastr
It is like saying "All soccer players are athletes, but not all athletes are soccer players". Does this mean that being a soccer player is "something more than being an athlete?" No.

My point exactly. If you are an athlete, you might be a soccer player or a tennis player. However, you cannot be a soccer player and not be an athlete.

Yet, that's how Clancie and neofight want it to be.

Take a look at this:

CFLarsen: "How come being a psychic medium is suddenly more encompassing than being a psychic?"

Clancie: "Suddenly? Haven't we always said that "psychic mediums" are "psychic + medium"? "

neofight argues that JE is not just a psychic, but something more: "mediumship has always been understood to encompass more than mere psychic abilities".

So, Clancie and neofight are saying that mediums are more than just psychics.

They believe "All mediums are psychic, but not all psychics are mediums" means that there is more to being a medium than just being a psychic. According to their own definitions (links), this is not so.

Hence, the confusion. But hey, they are not alone, even Brian Hurst mixes the terms! :)

[juryjone]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


My point exactly. If you are an athlete, you might be a soccer player or a tennis player. However, you cannot be a soccer player and not be an athlete.

Yet, that's how Clancie and neofight want it to be.

Take a look at this:

CFLarsen: "How come being a psychic medium is suddenly more encompassing than being a psychic?"

Clancie: "Suddenly? Haven't we always said that "psychic mediums" are "psychic + medium"? "

neofight argues that JE is not just a psychic, but something more: "mediumship has always been understood to encompass more than mere psychic abilities".

So, Clancie and neofight are saying that mediums are more than just psychics.

They believe "All mediums are psychic, but not all psychics are mediums" means that there is more to being a medium than just being a psychic. According to their own definitions (links), this is not so.


I don't think the "athlete/soccer" analogy is appropriate, since it is possible to play soccer without being an athlete. Not very well, but it is possible. Let's try "All Baptists are Protestant, but not all Protestants are Baptist." Making to appropriate substsutions in the post:
_____________________
CFLarsen: "How come being a Protestant Baptist is suddenly more encompassing than being a Protestant?"

Clancie: "Suddenly? Haven't we always said that "Protestant Baptists" are "Protestant + Baptist"? "

neofight argues that JE is not just a Protestant, but something more: "Bing a Baptist has always been understood to encompass more than mere Protestant abilities".

So, Clancie and neofight are saying that Baptists are more than just Protestants.

They believe "All Baptists are Protestant, but not all Protestants are Baptist" means that there is more to being a Baptist than just being a Protestant. According to their own definitions (links), this is not so.
____________________

IMO, it's obvious that any activity I engage in encompasses more than just my being a white male. The fact that I am a singer "encompasses more than mere white male abilities", but doesn't take me out of the white male group. So I think neofight saying that does not contradict the premise that all mediumd are psychic.

However, I think Clancie's statement about "psychic + medium" implies that these two qualities could be separated - that you could be a medium without being a psychic. If medium implies psychic, just as Baptist implies Protestant, then why separate them?

When it gets right down to it, though, it's two people who disagree with each other having the imperfect vehicle of language to use to try to come to common ground. Sometimes the right words are not used - I don't think Clancie meant that psychic and mediumship abilities should be separated, that mediumship is not "upper-level" psychic ability. But it's not perfectly clear. So Claus jumped on that. (Claus, please - lighten up a bit. Clancie may be wrong - is wrong, IMO - but nobody is swayed by parsing words. If you said, "Here's what you said and that implied this. Is that what you meant? No? OK, please explain further." without the attendant slams, we wouldn't have so many nitpicky posts in a thread about an interesting subject.)

Now, having said that (and rambled on ad nauseum), I want to ask Clancie about something she said when this subject first came up.

I would have certainly expected that he already understood the difference very well by now-- that "psychics" claim to be highly intuitive and able to tell you about your past, present and future...while "psychic mediums" say they are able to communicate with the deceased.

When mediums "commincate with the dead", what do they tell the sitter? Don't they tell the sitter about his/her past, present and future? Then isn't the only difference that mediums identify the source of their readings?

[Ed]

Isn't it simply a question of saying what a mark will pay to hear?

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by juryjone

When mediums "commincate with the dead", what do they tell the sitter? Don't they tell the sitter about his/her past, present and future?

This is an interesting point.

If revelations of future events is an accepted part of the communication passed on by mediums, I assume that one has to accept that the clairvoyancy is also real, either on the part of the medium of the deceased. Accepting clairvoyance is tantamount to accepting that future events are predestined. If not, they could not be seen.

So do the posters here who accept mediumship as a real phenomenon also regard any clairvoyant communication as valid also?

[CFLarsen]

juryjone,

I agree, your Protestant/Baptist analogy is better. When I say "athlete", I mean anyone who play sports.

I don't have a problem asking Clancie for clarification. But, as you know, she has a problem answering questions. She also has me on ignore...no, wait, she doesn't...no, wait, she does...oh, heck! :)

If Clancie would be willing to clarify what she says, then yes, we wouldn't have these discussions over something that should have been cleared a long time ago.

Confusion can be very convenient, especially if you have a weak case. ;)

[Clancie]

Posted by juryjone

When mediums "commincate with the dead", what do they tell the sitter? Don't they tell the sitter about his/her past, present and future? Then isn't the only difference that mediums identify the source of their readings?
juryjone,

That's what I like about this board! Just when you think we've said and heard everything about this on both sides, some new point comes up.

Interesting question. I first have to admit that I have never been to a psychic so I'm limited by what I've read about psychic readings and what I've seen on tv (i.e. Sylvia).

The reason psychics don't interest me much is because, from what I've seen, the information doesn't need to be very specific (I find some mediumship info very specific--and to be "evidential", imo, it really should be).

In mediumship, the "evidential" communications about past, present, and (occasionally) future events presented as being from spirit need to be very specific. It is not "evidential", imo, for a medium to say "you had a difficult relationship with your mother"...."I see a real career turn-around coming for you soon"...etc. as a psychic can.

A medium has a higher "burden of proof" imo because in a mediumistic reading there should either be specifics about the past that validate a particular bond and experience between sitter and deceased. For information about the present, the detail should again be very specific, since the claim is that the deceased is now an observer of your life.

Its not enough to say, "Job difficulties" as a psychic might. But when JE mentions someone has her father's picture on her desk at work and he is laughing at her about "The Price is Right" and she says she always uses Bob Barker's phrase calling people to her desk, "Come on down!".....well, you might say its just "making it fit"...then again, its a lot more specific than "You like your job now."

With mediumship, there should be a personal connection with the deceased (that's why names, cause of death, etc. are more important in a mediumship reading than with a psychic). Also--this is a bit intangible--but a sense of personality coming through. And it should be specific, with some sort of personal detail that is unlikely to just be generic, one size fits all.

[RonSceptic]

Hi Clancie,

Is it your view that the spirits can somehow see the future?

[Clancie]

Hi RonSkeptic,

I personally have never had an experience where that happened. I have heard some mediums say that sometimes, in certain situations, they get spirits (or maybe its their spirit guides) who can give sitters information about something that is yet to come.

Personally, I haven't seen this myself--or seen it convincingly demonstrated (warnings about car accidents, etc. don't, imo, count).

[voidx]

Originally posted by Mike D.
voidx,

My condolences on the loss of your grandmother.

My feeling is that people use various means to resolve their grief, and I think that the sheer passage of time is probably the most effective healer in the majority of cases. I think a healthy outcome is one in which an individual can be relatively happy in going on with his or her life, and life becomes generally livable again. I think this is a process that seems for many to happen whether they believe in an afterlife or not, although I do think that a person's beliefs can sometimes speed up or slow down the process.
I especially agree with the last part. A personal belief can I suppose in some sense help a person, but it can also prolong their grief as well, depends on the individuals state of mind I suppose.

If the dead continued to exist in some fashion, and if there are or were mediums who could really communicate with them, my main interest in them would be to see if they could be developed to the point of providing reliable communication on demand, so that in a sense the separation of death would be thwarted. I can't see that I'd be interested in using them to resolve grief. I've been to several mediums in the past out of curiosity and not to resolve grief. I've lost my share of loved ones, and my sometimes intense grief has resolved itself over time and without any inner certainty that my loved ones are still living in an afterlife.
I believe this as well. To me, I think people, while they have my sympathy, that go to mediums to help resolve their grief, have deeper issues to deal with. Grief is a personal thing, it can be eased by being around others, family and friends, but ultimately, like all things in life, you must deal with it yourself, in your own way.

Steve Grenard has posted that he visited a trance medium in his area who was 100% accurate and spoke in the first person as his deceased loved one, and that it was in some sense like his loved one was talking to him. I have no idea what the explanation of Steve's experience is, and that particular medium is not one I've visited. People might speculate, depending on their outlook, that his experience was, on one end of the spectrum, completely fabricated, or, on the other end, a genuine hour-long conversation he had with his deceased loved one through a rarely gifted woman. I suppose such an experience would have potential to hasten the natural resolution of grief, but my interest in it, if it could be shown to be true, would be that it would hint at the possibilities of a new communications system.
While perhaps it could hasten the resolution of grief, I also seeing it as being able to prolong it unnecessarily too. I also would find the new form of communication fascinating, but I would have no personal interest in communicating with any of my deceased relatives. I've grieved their deaths and made my good-byes. In short there's been closure, what possibly would their be left to say? If you haven't had any closure, then I personally don't believe communicating with them through a medium would give you that, you have other issues preventing you from your closure, in my opinion.

People seem to take comfort in the idea that their dead relatives are still here, that they are looking over us. While I suppose I can understand why they would see this as comforting it doesn't do much for me. I'm an adult, I live my own life, I take control of it as much as anyone can. I don't need my deceased relatives looking out for me, I can take care of myself. If I need some help I have the rest of my family and friends, and I have my memories of those that have died. I don't see what going and talking to them again would achieve, aside from making me deal with my grief all over again. They've died, they've had their time, and now its gone, simple as that. It just seems to me on a certain level that people can't accept the idea that they left things unsaid, and so they need this comfort that their dead relatives and friends are still there so they can pretend to be able to communicate with them and resolve all that wasn't said. I guess with all due respect I'm of the opinion of, be an adult, realize life isn't always fair and things get left unsaid, that this is more than likely the reality of our existance and get over it. You won't have your loved ones there left to look over your shoulder and make sure that your always ok, and they shouldn't have too.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi RonSkeptic,

I personally have never had an experience where that happened. I have heard some mediums say that sometimes, in certain situations, they get spirits (or maybe its their spirit guides) who can give sitters information about something that is yet to come.

Personally, I haven't seen this myself--or seen it convincingly demonstrated (warnings about car accidents, etc. don't, imo, count).

I think the absence of convincing examples is pretty telling. Regardles of ones' opinion on mediumship in general, ( which you and I clearly have different views on) posposting events into the future seems to me to just an easy way of massaging a complete 'miss'. Does it not arouse your suspicions when JE does it? Or does he not do this at all?

[juryjone]

Originally posted by Clancie
Personally, I haven't seen this myself--or seen it convincingly demonstrated (warnings about car accidents, etc. don't, imo, count).

Granted, predictions made about the future don't seem to be as specific as the "hits from the past", and specificity is what you say makes mediumship info "evidential".

How about information on the present day? "You're six weeks pregnant - a boy." "Your husband is late for the reading because you daughter sprained her ankle running cross-country." Anything that specific come up about the present?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi voidx,

I'm sorry to hear of your grandmother's death, but I'm glad that your family experienced the grieving process in such a positive and supportive way.

I don't know if you feel believers don't do that, too, or if maybe you are just feeling philosophical and sharing your thoughts about death and grief in general. I find that often happens when someone close to me dies and I'm suddenly forced to stop and really think about mortality--not only theirs, but my own as well.
I'm sure many believers have positive grieving process' as well. I was mostly just sharing my thoughts on the subject of this thread with my recent experience. But in my opinion there's always an extra hint of hope or comfort provided by this belief that their loved ones are still with them. Too me its false hope and comfort as it seems to me that its more likely their not still with us, that there is no afterlife.

Well, you may be 100% correct about this, but I do notice that you used the word "believe". I think that was an appropriate word, too, because you may feel pretty confident of your view, but really, we don't actually know what happens after death. You know Shakespeare..."the undiscovered country"....
While I agree we don't definitively know, I'd also like to note that it seems less likely that anything happens after we die, except being dead. From my standpoint while Science doesn't know everything, it continues to further our knowledge of how our minds and brains work, it makes logical steps and advances. I don't see the equivalent happening in paranormal circles. People sometimes say that because of the nature of what it is, this would be more difficult to measure and the like, but I find that a pretty solid cop-out.

Death may, indeed, be exactly as it appears to us--totally and completely the end of us in every respect. Or...there may be something of us that survives the physical death. The point is, we really don't know.
Again while I agree that we don't know definatively, the normal death scenario as I believe to be true is infinitely simpler, and seems to make logical sense. While keeping an open mind to surviving physical death, I also think its time specifics were demanded and provided on this process of spirit survival.

I remember reading Anne Druyan describing the last moments with Carl Sagan when they looked at each other and realized that "this wonderful journey together was over forever" (or words to that effect).

Well, some people believe in and accept the finality of death. Others feel there are reasons to think otherwise (many things that do not fit "the end is the end is the end" scenario...And others...are just...still not sure. [/B]
I'd be curious as to examples of things not fitting the end is the end scenario. I would be willing to accept strange phenomena, or weird anomalies that can't currently be explained, or cannot be explained definitively because of lack of information. But to take these right off the bat as logical holes in the above mentioned scenario is stretching a bit. But I digress a bit, I agree that those seem to be the 3 stances people take. I myself infinitely prefer the first, with the caveat of perhaps being proven wrong.

[Clancie]

voidx,

Mike says he doesn't have conviction that mediumship is real, but from what he has read, he does feel there is evidence of anomalous cognition, specifically in the case of Mrs. Piper and Mrs. Garnett.

I think that is a cautious statement and one that various other open-minded skeptics who have looked at the research he refers to would support.

Does he say this "anomalous cognition" must be due to mediumship? No.

And, imo, he's right...it may not be. However, imo, mediumship cannot yet be ruled out as one of the possibilities, once the idea of anomalous cognition is accepted.

Examples like Piper and Garrett show that this issue cannot be so easily dismissed as a black and white, open and shut case, of scientists being able to say "we fully understand the mind/body connection....we fully understand how apparently anomalous cognition happens....we are completely certain that it happens in a way that is completely explainable through what we already know of science....and we can say with certainty that "dead is dead", nothing of us continues beyond death in any way whatsoever."

Perhaps you and I disagree on the limits of science to date, but I personally don't feel that scientists have conclusively shown the above statement to be an indisputed and undeniable fact.

[Clancie]

Posted by RonSkeptic

...posposting events into the future seems to me to just an easy way of massaging a complete 'miss'. Does it not arouse your suspicions when JE does it? Or does he not do this at all?
Well, I have seen him do it occasionally, but I would say...quite seldom. I think JE does, like many psychics, feel he is sometimes given information about future events.

I just can't comment because I haven't seen enough of that kind of thing to convince me.

Posted by Juryjone

How about information on the present day? "You're six weeks pregnant - a boy." "Your husband is late for the reading because you daughter sprained her ankle running cross-country." Anything that specific come up about the present?
I've seen mediums give information that was comparably specific, imo. Maybe psychics do, too, but as I say, my understanding of psychic readings is very limited. I would definitely be more impressed, if I saw they were that specific. And they may be. I just really don't know much about it.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
voidx,

Mike says he doesn't have conviction that mediumship is real, but from what he has read, he does feel there is evidence of anomalous cognition, specifically in the case of Mrs. Piper and Mrs. Garnett.

I think that is a cautious statement and one that various other open-minded skeptics who have looked at the research he refers to would support.

Does he say this "anomalous cognition" must be due to mediumship? No.

And, imo, he's right...it may not be. However, imo, mediumship cannot yet be ruled out as one of the possibilities, once the idea of anomalous cognition is accepted.
All fine and good. I've never disagreed with this sentiment, so I'm a little unclear as to why you are bringing it up. I've not yet read enough about Piper's actual readings to decide for myself whether what she performed would fall into anomalous cognition, but I don't discount the possibility. And as I mentioned in my post I've not discounted the possibility of mediumship, but that does not refrain me from seeing it as unlikely that its the actual possibility. I would think that when presented with anomalous cognitions you lean towards a paranormal possiblity, where I lean to there being some logical reason to explain, currently known or not.

Examples like Piper and Garrett show that this issue cannot be so easily dismissed as a black and white, open and shut case, of scientists being able to say "we fully understand the mind/body connection....we fully understand how apparently anomalous cognition happens....we are completely certain that it happens in a way that is completely explainable through what we already know of science....and we can say with certainty that "dead is dead", nothing of us continues beyond death in any way whatsoever."
Of course its not black and white, and no Science cannot definitevly rule out the possibility of it at this point. Again I've not asserted either of these so I'm unclear as to why you bring them up. My position has always been, Science has a logical explanation up to its current point of understanding, and continues to enhance and improve and discover new things about that understanding. I don't believe mediumship, and paranormal research can really claim the same thing. And so I lean more solidly toward Sciences non-paranormal view of things. Despite what I might want to be true, Science to me has the more solid case, sorry.

Perhaps you and I disagree on the limits of science to date, but I personally don't feel that scientists have conclusively shown the above statement to be an indisputed and undeniable fact.
Agreed, and again I've not asserted this. But would you admit that Sciences explanation is a more consistent and logical one than that of the current paranormal explanation of what happens after we die? I'm not trying to sound stand-offish, but it seems we agree on the fact that science cannot concretely disprove the possibility of some form of afterlife currently, and I thought I'd made that position quite clear within my posts.

[Loki]

Clancie,

I first have to admit that I have never been to a psychic ...
I've been to a pyschic, but not a medium. The psychic was an "aura reader". She started the reading by explaining her abilities - we each have a "self" (our bodies) and a "higher self" (our spirit). When the path of our lives is not what our higher self wishes it to be - in other words, our 'lower self' has made the wrong life choices - our lives are unhappy and unfulfilling, and our 'aura' is 'disturbed'. This woman claimed to be able to read the aura, and through this contact the 'higher self' so that she can guide us back onto the 'true path' of our life. No dead people involved, she simply acts as a go-between for your lower and higher selves.

The interesting thing about this woman is that she asked *NO* questions at all. She spoke for almost an hour, non stop, and didn't ask a single question. I was allowed (actually, she insisted) to tape the reading. If she cheated, it was warm or hot reading only - no opportunity for cold reading, because I was silent the entire time!

...so I'm limited by what I've read about psychic readings and what I've seen on tv (i.e. Sylvia).
But Sylvia (Browne) is a medium. Hell, Clancie, perhaps Claus is right here and you are throwing these terms around fairly carelessly!?!?!

The reason psychics don't interest me much is because, from what I've seen, the information doesn't need to be very specific (I find some mediumship info very specific--and to be "evidential", imo, it really should be).
The aura reader produced several very specific (and accurate) statements regarding my past, and several regarding my immediate future. Of course, these occasional accuracies were like lighthouses amongst a sea of rambling vaguarities.

She went as far as to make two clear and unambiguous predictions for my future (not "a change of job" - although she did try that one as well!!). She even put a timetable on these predictions - she has two more years in which they have to come to pass. I'm waiting...