Mrs. Piper Mediumship Discussion

[Mike D.]

Yeah, but Phinuit wasn't the spirit of a male French doctor, was he? He was an artificial personality of Mrs. Piper's.

So, it is Mrs. Piper. Right?

Claus,

I think a somewhat rough analogy here is that a dream character who speaks and acts in your dream is in a sense an "artificial personality" your mind has created. Let's say that you are reporting upon waking in the morning the activities and sayings of a female character in a dream you had. Even though you know that the character was entirely a creation of your own mind, I doubt you would report what that character said by saying "I said..." I imagine you would say "She said..."

Mike

 

[CFLarsen]

Mike D.,

I can see where you are going with your analogy, but it all depends on Piper really being unconscious - and we don't know that for sure. That would require an EEG, something that was not available in those days.

To assume that she was unconscious and work from there is a waste of time. We simply don't know.

The following explanations are therefore worthless. They are based on nothing but guesswork.

 

[Mike D.]

Mike D.,

I can see where you are going with your analogy, but it all depends on Piper really being unconscious - and we don't know that for sure. That would require an EEG, something that was not available in those days.

To assume that she was unconscious and work from there is a waste of time. We simply don't know.

The following explanations are therefore worthless. They are based on nothing but guesswork.

Claus,

I'm not making a claim here about whether or not Mrs. Piper was really unconscious. I simply put forth the analogy in an attempt to help explain why things being said by the control personality were reported as being said by "he," rather than "she."

Mike

 

[Mike D.]

Mike D.,

I can see where you are going with your analogy, but it all depends on Piper really being unconscious - and we don't know that for sure. That would require an EEG, something that was not available in those days.

What Claus has said here makes me wonder what an EEG would show when the primary personality of the medium is allegedly unconscious during deep trance and other personalities are speaking. It seems likely to me whatever personality speaking would experience consciousness during its time "on stage" so to speak, so perhaps the EEG would indicate that consciousness was present and in itself would tell us nothing as to whether or not the primary personality of the medium was unconscious.

 

[CFLarsen]

Mike D.,

I know. I am not attacking you, I am pointing out that the researchers are basing their explanations on nothing but guesswork.

 

[CFLarsen]

Mike D.,

An EEG would tell you if you were conscious or not.

Your explanation that an EEG would show nothing, because a different personality would take over is exactly what I am talking about: You invent explanations, based on guesswork, so the medium's performance can be interpreted as paranormal.

If not through EEG, how are you going to determine whether a person is unconscious or not?

 

[T'ai Chi]

I think we are wasting our time here, guys. We won't see anything that even remotely looks like mediumship here.

You're free then, as usual, to leave.

What we do see is yet another grand claim, reduced to nothingness when exposed to the skeptical eye.

Not your skeptical eye, that's for sure. You say you won't even read the research because it is a waste of time.

 

[Mike D.]

When one begins to read more in depth about Mrs. Piper's mediumship, one can find unusual things reported. For example, there was a period where investigators reported that during her seances one alleged communicator would communicate about a particular topic through the use of her voice, while simultaneously another alleged communicator would communicate on an entirely different topic through using her hand to produce "automatic writing."

 

[CFLarsen]

You're free then, as usual, to leave.

You'd love that, I know.

Not your skeptical eye, that's for sure. You say you won't even read the research because it is a waste of time.

Never said that I wouldn't read it. Lying now, eh?

Do you think you could contribute with something substantial, instead of going for personal attacks?

 

[CFLarsen]

When one begins to read more in depth about Mrs. Piper's mediumship, one can find unusual things reported. For example, there was a period where investigators reported that during her seances one alleged communicator would communicate about a particular topic through the use of her voice, while simultaneously another alleged communicator would communicate on an entirely different topic through using her hand to produce "automatic writing."

In any research, you can find unusual things reported. What is important is, can these things be verified?

I'm afraid that if Piper kept changing her performance, going through what very much looks like the standard ruses employed by known fake mediums, it does not speak well of her paranormal abilities. It raises suspicion that she simply tried, tried and tried, until she found something that would impress the researchers.

We even see this today with John Edward, Sylvia Browne, James van Praagh, etc. They change their schtick over time, adapting to the times.

If not through EEG, how are you going to determine whether a person is unconscious or not?

 

[Mike D.]

If not through EEG, how are you going to determine whether a person is unconscious or not?

Claus,

I don't know.

Mike

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't know.

So, you agree that any explanation, based on the state of Piper's consciousness, is worthless?

 

[T'ai Chi]

You'd love that, I know.

I could care less.

Now every report of unconsciousness pre-EKG is immediately suspicious! What next?

Never said that I wouldn't read it. Lying now, eh?

You're correct. You never did say you wouldn't read it. I retract that statement of mine as I was incorrect. See, I admit I'm wrong. You didn't have the balls to say you were wrong, when you quoted me incorrectly. Figures.

It would have been more correct to say that you won't consider it, as you've said:

"I do therefore not agree that it is even worth the time considering these very convoluted explanations."

and

"I think we are wasting our time here, guys."

Do you think you could contribute with something substantial, instead of going for personal attacks?

Telling Ian to stop drinking; is that personal or sticking to the substantial?

Let us know!

Boriinnggg...

 

[Mike D.]

In any research, you can find unusual things reported. What is important is, can these things be verified?

I'm afraid that if Piper kept changing her performance, going through what very much looks like the standard ruses employed by known fake mediums, it does not speak well of her paranormal abilities. It raises suspicion that she simply tried, tried and tried, until she found something that would impress the researchers.

Claus,

Was it a standard ruse of known fake mediums to produce voice communications on one topic and automatic writing on a completely different topic simultaneously?

One thing I think would be interesting to do if I had the time is to try to find out if in the annals of psychopathology anything similar has been reported, i.e., one individual simultaneously producing information on one topic through voice and information on a completely different topic through writiing. I mean whether or not this phenomenon has ever been recorded apart from a spiritistic framework.

Mike

 

[Mike D.]

So, you agree that any explanation, based on the state of Piper's consciousness, is worthless?

I wouldn't use the term, "worthless." I would say that one could still devise explanations based on an indidivual's self-reporting of his or her own state, but that nailing these explanatons down with the hard science of EEG tracings would likely be problematic. I don't think I know enough about this area to comment any further than that.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

I'll just quickly deal with this and get back to you later on your other points.

I freely admit I could just be being dense here but both transcribings of yours say:

"He describes the child and her 'lovely curls'."

But I still can't work out who is saying this and what I want to know is which one of the following it is:

Piper as her control describing the girl (but then why the "he"?)

or

The recorder recording that Piper as her control described the little girl but the recorder didn't note down anything other then the fact that the girl was described and the 'lovely curls' (this is the one that I believe would undermine the veracity of the transcript)

or

Piper, as Piper saying that her control was describing the little girl to her but Piper didn't mention anything of that description apart from the fact the girl had 'lovely curls'.

Hopefully that clears up your confusion of my confusion!

So what I am asking for is for either you or Mike to go back to your original research source and check which it is (or I suppose it could remain ambiguous even in the original source which would be annoying).

Well, I'm still not sure I understand. I gave Gauld's intro "It must be understood that throughout Phinuit speaks and sometimes gesticulates) on behalf of the child communicator; she does not 'control' herself. The annotations in square brakets are by Mrs. Sutton."

As for how the excerpt begins...

Phinuit said...A little child is coming to you...He reaches out his hands as to a child and says coaxingly: Come here...

As I say, I reformatted it to indicate Piper/Phinuit/medium were speaking since the note taker most often referred to Piper as "he" (meaning Phinuit). I took it that this was the meaning of "He" in the sentence above as well, since the child communicator was female.

Posted by Mike D

so perhaps the EEG would indicate that consciousness was present and in itself would tell us nothing as to whether or not the primary personality of the medium was unconscious.

Yes, Mike, perhaps so. Or, possibly it would show a dramatically different EEG when a medium was in trance. How to interpret that would be an issue at that point, but just being able to measure a physical change while a medium was in trance would be, imo, useful information.

I don't know if an EEG would show any change or not, but it is one of the few things about mediumship (and related phenomena) that can -possibly- be measured in a controlled setting...and replicated...so I still think it would be interesting to see if any unusual patterns turned up or not.

 

[Mike D.]

I don't know if an EEG would show any change or not, but it is one of the few things about mediumship (and related phenomena) that can -possibly- be measured in a controlled setting...and replicated...so I still think it would be interesting to see if any unusual patterns turned up or not.

I agree that this would be interesting to see.

 

[Kopji]

I was interested to find that Mrs Piper had her own honest doubts about whether she was actually communicating with the dead or not. Question: If she did not know for sure, how can we, a century later, be expected to be more confident than her?

Also, the 'controls' mentioned are spoken of as actual spirits. This seemingly authoritative article make no mention that they were thought to be 'artificial' entities. Which is it? If they were not actually real, this biographical link seems highly deceptive.

Source
...Mrs. Piper was subject only once to the shadow of doubt. On October 20, 1901, the New York Herald published a statement of Mrs. Piper, advertised as a confession, in which she was quoted to say that she intended to give up the work she had been doing for the Society for Psychical Research. She was quoted as saying:

"The theory of telepathy strongly appeals to me as the most plausible and genuinely scientific solution . . . I do not believe that spirits of the dead have spoken through me when I have been in the trance state . . . It may be that they have, but I do not affirm it."

Mrs. Piper was infuriated that the facts of her comments had been so badly twisted and proclaimed as a confession. On October 25, 1901, she stated in The Boston Advertiser:

"I did not make any such statement as that published in the New York Herald to the effect that spirits of the departed do not control me . . . My opinion is today as it was eighteen years ago. Spirits of the departed may have controlled and they may have not. I confess that I do not know. I have not changed."

 

[Clancie]

Darat,

I still don't think I understand your question, but I suppose another possibility is that Piper/Phinuit offered more description than the note taker wrote down and instead she summarized it as "He describes the child" then adds his specific mention that she gets of "her 'lovely curls'".

I don't think its any clearer than this from the Gauld excerpt. When I have a chance I'll see if Braude's gives more detail that might address your question (which I'm still not really sure that I understand. I -do- think the note taker's phrasing of that first sentence is different from the rest of the transcript, if she's summarizing rather than telling all that Phinuit says).


Kopji,

I don't see why Mrs. Piper should know any more about what exactly was happening to her than anyone else does, maybe even less, if you assume she was really in trance.

I don't see anything suspicious at all about her honest feeling that (paraphrasing), "I don't know where this information comes from either."

 

[Mike D.]

Also, the 'controls' mentioned are spoken of as actual spirits. This seemingly authoritative article make no mention that they were thought to be 'artificial' entities. Which is it? If they were not actually real, this biographical link seems highly deceptive.

Kopji,

The idea that at least some of Mrs. Piper's controls (like Dr. Phinuit) were likely artificial personalities created by Mrs. Piper's subconscious mind is one that was held by people investigating her. What you quote here reflects Piper's own uncertainty about the issue, but does not mention what the investigators thought of controls like Dr. Phinuit.

Mike