The ideomotor effect and mediumnity

[Alice Shortcake]

Akhenaten, thanks for adding the word "debunkly" to my vocabulary. I shall endeavour to use it in conversation at every opportunity.

 

[Olowkow]

Debunkly Skerricks Pack (DSP^TM)

Meeting tonight at 11:00 at the billibong. Bring dictionaries.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

*Slips dictionary into sporran, sets out for billibong*

 

[tsig]

Hi Olowkow,



Yes, I did... At leat to one of them. Did you by any chance get round to seeing anything about Chico Xavier's work? Could indeed the eyes be a necessary instrument in the use of the Ouija? There are just too many questions for one person to answer. I am not boo-hooing at all. I did not know quite what to expect when I came here, but yes, I was willing to engage. And either we can do so in a friendly and polite manner or indeed, as one of you suggested, I can just give up.

My "fallible memory" created some doubt in my mind as to whether that friend of mine who's cousin's brother had died had his finger on the glass when it spelled out his name. How there can be an alternation in who of the four people with their fingers on the glass is predominating in each response remains a mystery to me though. As would the symbolism of the "spiral", or the "one in four" correct answer concerning the piece of paper with the symbol of the cross. Whatever conclusion we might reach, the subconscious mind still remains a formidable instrument. What a pity if it should all go to waste and hold no continuity...

I am not, as you seem to also be thinking, in need of associating my "simple life" to any "grander picture". As I have told you all, I have my house, I have my work and I have my family, and live a perfectly happy life.

In whatever purpose I set myself out to doing, based, yes, on my own personal experiences and my own personal beliefs, my motivation was to shed some knowledge and some food for thought. I believe I may have been successful at least in this respect in my little incursion over here. And if this is so, then I can consider my work done. I must say, however, that neither of us have changed each others' minds. My doubts still continue, and despite what you all keep on claiming, I believe it is very possible that yours might have too...

My kindest regards to all of you (and I really do mean it. Please stop jumping to conclusions prior to knowing the facts).

Charles

Why won't you do the test where you work the board blindfolded and moved from it's usual location?

 

[Loss Leader]

Why won't you do the test where you work the board blindfolded and moved from it's usual location?

Charles has yet to say what he thinks an Ouija board reliable can do. Without that, I'm not sure what you'd be testing.

Charles, does the use of an Ouija board let the spirits speak through the subconscious every time with anyone, every time with believers, just some of the time, or what? Can you give me an example of who could reliably be sat down at an Ouija board and have spirits talk?

If the spirits control the subconscious some (but not all) of the time, how do we know which messages are from the spirit world and which are just from the unaided subconscious?

 

[Nonpareil]

I honestly misinterpreted you all in that I thought there were some serious researchers amongst you

There are.

for all I have found in this forum are people hell-bent on just “debunking” anything that might be presented.

We debunk only that which is demonstrably wrong.

You will no longer find me at Carol's forum, for I have been very understandably and rightly suspended, though I don't feel I should really be held responsible for all your appalling behaviors. I offered the link to her forum in good faith, and again you all made a shambles of it.

This is such a blatant lie that I can hardly fathom it.

I honestly don't know why you all should feel that reincarnation would be such a bad thing.

Who said that we did?

If you want to burn someone at the stake, kindly do it to me and leave the CPL forum alone.

As one who read through the entirety of the CPL threads, I know that you are being either incredibly disingenuous or incredibly self-deluded. The JREF members who moved to the CPL posted little and did nothing to "burn its members at the stake".

Concerning the Ouija and the ideomotor effect, for what it might be worth the “ideomotor effect” is very much an aspect of mediumnic communications.

Prove it.

Could indeed the eyes be a necessary instrument in the use of the Ouija?

Why would they be?

 

[Akhenaten]

Akhenaten, thanks for adding the word "debunkly" to my vocabulary. I shall endeavour to use it in conversation at every opportunity.

Small enough repayment for the contribution of your mad research skillz.

Debunkly Skerricks Pack (DSP^TM)

Meeting tonight at 11:00 at the billibong. Bring dictionaries.

*Slips dictionary into sporran, sets out for billibong*

The Debunkly came down like the wolf on the fold
And his skerricks were gleaming in purple and gold;
The swish of their sporrans like notes from a song,
When the Bunyip calls nightly in deep billabongs.​

 

[Charles Boden]

Despite all your clever argumentations and what you refer to as "well founded facts", I believe that despite what you are all saying you are quite aware that, as Garrette said, I am not "unintelligent". For twelve years I frequented a spiritualist center, as I also told you, and hold no doubt in my mind as to the reality of the spiritual phenomena. This is what makes it even funnier, for the views you are all presenting concernng the absurdity of my claim come across to me as equally absurd on your part in all your claims that spirituality is not real.

The explanation concerning the "Soul-Consciousness" accounts for the phenomena of mediumnity, of reincarnation, of NDEs, OBEs, and it could even be the explanation behind the "placebo" effect, or even what might be behind the physical evolution of the species!!!

Alice, could you do me a favor and refer to what differences you may have found in my family tree? Despite what you are all saying, that other thread is so full of pesonal offence that I honestly do not care to again have to read through it all.

It's Sunday and my day is more free, so I'll be able to reply sooner here. I am glad to hear that those who have gone to the CPL forum are being well treated over there. It appears I was put under probation because I was provoking all of you even further, and making eveyone over there have to work double-time. They are all very nice people, believe me. The forum is not "just to promote books", as I'm sure those who might have taken a look may have found out. Many who participate there do so due to a sincere belief, as is my case.

Yes, I came here into the "Biker's Bar" and picked a fight, but it is a friendly one, I assure you all. You certainly weren't meant to overhear (overread?) my "I think I'll take a little poke at those skeptics". It's just that I enjoy debating the issue and do derive some pleasure from learning about the different views of others. But as I said before, it is not within my scope to provide "proof" of anything related to spirituality. When one sits for a mediumnic consultation, as well as the inevitable "intereference" of the medium, there is also the predisposition of the consultant, so it does not surprise me that your results have not been any more significant in your testings. Spirituality does not reveal its secrets so easily, I can assure you, and I believe it has already been proven that the results are influenced by the observer?

You claim I have been sharing "anecdotes". They are not. They are just "personal experiences" that I came to encounter and which you have not, and my mentioning them, whether here, at Carol's forum or in my story, is nothing more than a desire to share them. Just that "little message of hope" I was referring to. This, I believe, is very much the reason behind the participation of most of the members and moderators at Carol's forum also.

Anyone found Flora's hat yet? I would love to read something nice for a change...

Charles

 

[Sledge]

So to summarise: Charles will ignore all the evidence to the contrary because he thinks he's clever.

 

[Aepervius]

Despite all your clever argumentations and what you refer to as "well founded facts", I believe that despite what you are all saying you are quite aware that, as Garrette said, I am not "unintelligent".

Charles, NOBODY told that. Intelligent people go into wrong reasonning or irrationality all the time. Nobody tell them when they do that they are "unintelligent". The problem is that intelligent people often make the error to think their expertise allow them to dissect any phenomenon and find out "the truth". It is actually demonstrably incorrect and that is why intelligent people get taken into scam or irrational process.

For twelve years I frequented a spiritualist center, as I also told you, and hold no doubt in my mind as to the reality of the spiritual phenomena. This is what makes it even funnier, for the views you are all presenting concernng the absurdity of my claim come across to me as equally absurd on your part in all your claims that spirituality is not real.

Some of us have studied , or read about psi, spiritualism, and ESp for about 2 time , to 3 time that amount of time. It is quite funny that you seem to think we came as NEWBORN in this discussion. Once you will start to recognize that many of us have a LONG experience and some good knowledge , maybe as good as yours, then maybe we can start discussing. But as long as you are stuck on the "meany skeptic which know nothing want to teach me my stuff is wrong" refrain, we won't go anywhere.

The explanation concerning the "Soul-Consciousness" accounts for the phenomena of mediumnity, of reincarnation, of NDEs, OBEs, and it could even be the explanation behind the "placebo" effect, or even what might be behind the physical evolution of the species!!!

No evidence of this. Actually there are much more evidence for the contrary (that placebo , and in addition physiological psychological effect are SOLELY responsible for people believing in all what you cited)

When one sits for a mediumnic consultation, as well as the inevitable "intereference" of the medium, there is also the predisposition of the consultant, so it does not surprise me that your results have not been any more significant in your testings. Spirituality does not reveal its secrets so easily, I can assure you, and I believe it has already been proven that the results are influenced by the observer?

All that has been DEMONSTRATED up to now, is that it is mostly a mix of cold and hot reading, mixed with a bit of scamming. Nothing more has been demonstrated.

You claim I have been sharing "anecdotes". They are not. They are just "personal experiences" that I came to encounter and which you have not, and my mentioning them, whether here, at Carol's forum or in my story, is nothing more than a desire to share them.

A personal experience *IS* an anecdote , as in, "not evidence". It isn't belittling the personal experience, it is QUALIFYING the personal experience.

 

[Mirrorglass]

So to summarise: Charles will ignore all the evidence to the contrary because he thinks he's clever.

And because we suck.

 

[Sledge]

And because we suck.

D'oh! Forgot to mention that.

 

[Aepervius]

And because we suck.

Yeah I can see that.

"I have 12 years of spiritualism". (paraphrase)

Because , you know, we are all younger than charles (!) and we all started studying spiritualism after he started (!).

It could not be that some of us have spent a lot more time looking and reading and learning. Nan. Can't be.

 

[Sledge]

Some of us haven't studied spiritualism for 12 years because it took us a lot less time to see it was all bollocks.

 

[Aepervius]

Some of us haven't studied spiritualism for 12 years because it took us a lot less time to see it was all bollocks.

My value of "studied" include "reading an article from tiem to time and see if there is more evidence for it than 30 years ago (read : none)".

 

[Akhenaten]

Despite all your clever argumentations and what you refer to as "well founded facts", I believe that despite what you are all saying you are quite aware that, as Garrette said, I am not "unintelligent". For twelve years I frequented a spiritualist center, as I also told you, and hold no doubt in my mind as to the reality of the spiritual phenomena.

Your placing of "well founded facts" in scare quotes doesn't make them go away, Charles. And thinking that you're too smart to fool yourself is just part of the delusion.

This is what makes it even funnier, for the views you are all presenting concernng the absurdity of my claim come across to me as equally absurd on your part in all your claims that spirituality is not real.

As funny as you might find it, Charles, you don't get to laugh about it until you present your evidence for why your absurd claims are true and 'our' reality is false.

We, on the other hand, get to laugh now, because people who believe in spirits and such are intrinsically funny.

And a new day will dawn
For those who stand long
And the forests will
Echo with laughter​

Keep looking, Charles. If you ever find your stairway you can laugh your arse off at us.

The explanation concerning the "Soul-Consciousness" accounts for the phenomena of mediumnity, of reincarnation, of NDEs, OBEs, and it could even be the explanation behind the "placebo" effect, or even what might be behind the physical evolution of the species!!!

No. "Soul Consciousness" accounts for exactly zero. Otherwise you'd be able to show us some evidence for these ridiculous claims, now wouldn't you?

Alice, could you do me a favor and refer to what differences you may have found in my family tree? Despite what you are all saying, that other thread is so full of pesonal offence that I honestly do not care to again have to read through it all.

Stiff. It's not the topic of this thread and you will likely be disciplined if you continue tryng to discuss it here.

It's Sunday and my day is more free, so I'll be able to reply sooner here. I am glad to hear that those who have gone to the CPL forum are being well treated over there. It appears I was put under probation because I was provoking all of you even further, and making eveyone over there have to work double-time. They are all very nice people, believe me. The forum is not "just to promote books", as I'm sure those who might have taken a look may have found out. Many who participate there do so due to a sincere belief, as is my case.

Also off-topic.

Yes, I came here into the "Biker's Bar" and picked a fight, but it is a friendly one, I assure you all. You certainly weren't meant to overhear (overread?) my "I think I'll take a little poke at those skeptics". It's just that I enjoy debating the issue and do derive some pleasure from learning about the different views of others. But as I said before, it is not within my scope to provide "proof" of anything related to spirituality. When one sits for a mediumnic consultation, as well as the inevitable "intereference" of the medium, there is also the predisposition of the consultant, so it does not surprise me that your results have not been any more significant in your testings. Spirituality does not reveal its secrets so easily, I can assure you, and I believe it has already been proven that the results are influenced by the observer?

At least this looks like it might be an attempt to address the topic, but it's so mixed up with your protestations that it's not up to you to provide any evidence for your ridiculous claims that it's hard to tell.

You claim I have been sharing "anecdotes". They are not. They are just "personal experiences" that I came to encounter and which you have not, and my mentioning them, whether here, at Carol's forum or in my story, is nothing more than a desire to share them.

So you don't understand what "anecdotes" means either? The list is growing . . .

Just that "little message of hope" I was referring to. This, I believe, is very much the reason behind the participation of most of the members and moderators at Carol's forum also.

"Little messages of hope" are for Hallmark sympathy cards, Charles. All they do here is induce nausea.

Anyone found Flora's hat yet? I would love to read something nice for a change...

Charles

You're not even remotely interested in discussing the ideomotor effect, are you?

 

[Charles Boden]

No, guys, you just didn't have the "personal experience" that I did. That's all...

We are again running around in circles.

 

[Sledge]

Your personal experience is irrelevant. Bring us some evidence.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

Charles, if you can't be bothered reading my examination of your bogus genealogical claims on the other thread I can't be bothered repeating them here. Suffice it to say that there is no evidence that the Janet Gordon from whom you claim to be descended was the grand-daughter of King James IV.

It's obvious to everyone here that you have a strange idea of what constitutes research. You bounced into a leading sceptical forum with a load of half-baked ideas about quantum theory, thereby revealing that you hadn't bothered to read any of the widely available books on the subject that would have answered all your questions.

Your account of the Jacqueline Pool murder showed that you weren't aware of the full story behind the case. To your credit, you later admitted as much. The facts are available to anyone with access to the internet and five minutes to spare, but you didn't make the effort to find them out for yourself.

You told us you were a sceptic for twelve years, during which time you somehow managed to remain totally ignorant of cold reading, confirmation bias, probability theory and indeed everything that makes sceptical analysis of supernatural claims possible. Even more suprisingly, you became a sceptic - for reasons you've never adequately explained - a couple of years after being told by a medium that you were the reincarnation of Bonnie Prince Charlie. The fact that you claim to "remember" the song Charlie is my Darling being sung during the prince's lifetime, when it was actually composed after his death, should have told you that this memory wasn't based on reality. But no, you clearly didn't make the tiny effort involved in finding this out.

You don't want to perform the "blindfold ouija" experiment because at some level you know that it won't produce meaningful messages.

All you've done is make it perfectly obvious that you shy away from the facts when there's a risk that they will overturn your precious fantasies. Your genealogical claims are a perfect example of this. The obvious place to look for ancestors who were members of aristocratic/royal families is Burke's Peerage, yet another poster on the Jacobite forum had to point out to you that the John Stewart from who you claimed to be descended could not have been the son of the 5th Earl of Moray, who was himself a descendent of King James V. Two years later you turn up here with another claim of royal descent through Janet Gordon. Charles, have you ever used Burke's Peerage as a source or cross-referenced it with other works on genealogy? Because it simply doesn't support your claims.

I can't help noticing that your book Descendant of Kings saw the light of day through CreateSpace, the self-publishing department of Amazon. I have absolutely no intention of putting money in your pocket to see exactly what you've written about your blood relationship to James IV, but the absence of editorial scrutiny must have made it easy to indulge in the fantasies that clearly mean so much to you.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Yeah I can see that.

"I have 12 years of spiritualism". (paraphrase)

Because , you know, we are all younger than charles (!) and we all started studying spiritualism after he started (!).

It could not be that some of us have spent a lot more time looking and reading and learning. Nan. Can't be.

That's part of it. But it isn't just our arrogance; it's also the fact that all our posts are just hateful drivel. It's as if we don't even read Charles' posts, and instead just keep writing rants where we underline our own ability, belittle that of others and chastise them for rudeness.

On numerous occasions, we insulted entire communities, making sweeping statements that deemed every single poster a dishonest loser. After that, we first made inflammatory statements about Charles threatening us, and then proceeded to blame Charles when we were suspended from the forum where said accusations were published, although only for a short time. And even now we continue to repeat the same, tired points, ignoring almost all replies, all the while claiming the moral high ground and pointing out how we are really doing Charles a favour by bringing him a message of hope, and deeming any questioners of said message mean, hypocritical and generally ignorant.

Or did I get something mixed up?

...

No, I'm pretty sure this is what Charles experienced.