Welcome, Tandi

[Interesting Ian]

Well, Like Tandi, I'm also a newcomer on here, although I'm a member of many other forums. My interest in the paranormal, whilst critical, does not preclude the existence of life after death and consequent spirit activity apparent to the living, at times.

I've checked the link to Digital Spy, and it seems to me Paj, that you have a certain degree of intellectual arrogance - one of your posts says "ghosts don't exist" as a bold statement of fact.....

.......yeah, right, like how do you know ?

Paj,

What do you mean by your statement "ghosts don't exist"? Do you mean that no-one ever has had a characteristic experience appropriately defined as a "ghost"? Or do you agree that people do indeed have such characteristic experiences, but that these experiences are wholly generated from within? Whichever option you're picking, can you justify your assertion?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

In that context, I define "ghost" as "something of which Most Haunted tries to capture evidence, but which does not exist."

 

[TheBoyPaj]

With regard to hard evidence, and it is a fair point, we have a bit of a problem. Because, quite honestly, the kind of evidence required by sceptics, pretty obviously, is not yet available. The paranormal is extremely nebulous, a bit like running water over your hand, then clenching your fist and expecting to hold it. We are talking about the interface between life and death here.

An oft-used diversion. While definitions of the paranormal are nebulous, shifting depending on who you speak to and what counter-evidence has been offered, the CLAIMS which people make are not.

Someone claims to be able to read minds. Prove it.
Someone claims to be able to get specific information from the dead. Prove it.

By pretending that these things cannot be tested, you hope to absolve yourself of the responsibility to support your claims. These powers appear to work night after night in front in front of a paying audience. That makes them reliable. They can be tested tomorrow. All a medium has to do is step forward.

 

[wahrheit]

Fair point - I will try and address them in the morning.

Jason - exits and deletes desktop shortcut to JREF.

I see.

 

[Azrael 5]

I would be happy to name the mediums that I have met, and think have a genuine ability, but they would only get slated on this forum

If you think that,then obviously two things are likely.Either the mediums in question have been discussed on here are shown to be fake,or you dont have the faith in them that you claim.Once again,Janice you show absolutely no evidence;name these mediums or leave the froum like you said you were doing months ago(when you couldnt post any evidence then ,either)
What is the point in you continuing on here? You claim to have met a genuine medium,this is the crux of this forum,no? Proof of the paranormal. Otherwise as you stated,you are just going round in circles.

 

[Interesting Ian]

No, you’ve got it completely backwards. You’re making the claim, the burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders.

. . . .

Dead people can’t talk. They have shuffled off this mortal coil.

I'm betting you can't supply the proof for your claim. The most you could say is that we do not detect dead peoples' consciousnesses, therefore they have ceased to exist. But that is unconvincing for many many reasons which I could elaborate upon if you so desired. For a kick-off, if the world is physically closed we do not even detect peoples' consciousnesses even when they are alive.

 

[Interesting Ian]

In that context, I define "ghost" as "something of which Most Haunted tries to capture evidence, but which does not exist."

I am not interested in silly TV programmes (if that's what "Most Haunted" is).

What about the ghosts encountered in, say, NDEs? Do they not exist? Even if they don't exist, are they experienced?

 

[Nex]

I was wondering how long it would take you to get here, Ian.

With the same tautologies, too.

 

[Dr Adequate]

That is my final offering on JREF, as it is clear that with one or two exceptions, debate is impossible due to the closed minds posting here. I am now returning to believer boards, with the earnest wish that sceptics would keep out, or at least, if they do come, try to debate reasonably and stop screaming "evidence" ...

Believer talk for beginners.

Debate is impossible = debate is occuring

Having a closed mind = asking for evidence.

Reasonable debate = accepting what you're told without asking for evidence.

Meanwhile Jason demonstrates his own "open mind" by refusing to to discuss his opinions. That's "open-mindedness", believer style.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Mighty Thor - just because I attend demonstrations, I do not go for a peronsal reading. As for these blue books, one of the mediums I peronally think are excellent (and have trained with) does a lot of work in the public domain, they most definitely do not use the blue book approach, they demonstrate in front of audiences somestimes with more than 2000 people attending, and do sittings the rest of the week, it would be physically impossible to remember personal details of 40+ people per week, as well as extensive travelling and demonstrations, time would not permit.

Er... impossible? To remember the details of 40+ people per week? Or about six a day? That's not impossible. It's not even difficult.

You seem, if I may say so, a little too easily impressed.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

I am not interested in silly TV programmes (if that's what "Most Haunted" is).

What about the ghosts encountered in, say, NDEs? Do they not exist? Even if they don't exist, are they experienced?

I have no idea. They fall outside the definition of "ghost" which I was using.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I have no idea. They fall outside the definition of "ghost" which I was using.

The apparitions experienced during NDEs and deathbed visions will certainly be of the same type. And the apparitions conveying a message of some sort (eg crisis apparitions) seem to be likely to be of the same type as ones experienced during NDEs and DBVs too. Are none of these ghosts, or would you say crisis apparitions are of a characteristic different kind from those experienced during DBVs?

Maybe you only define "ghosts" as those which seem to be akin to an old recording of some past event i.e those apparitions which do not appear to be sentient whatsoever? If you are only referring to these latter type of ghosts then it seems to me to be doubtful that they provide much evidence for a "life after death", and hence are uninteresting.

 

[Azrael 5]

Dr A,do you not think Janice is wasting everyone's time.Having been to a psychic fair today and see what diabolical cold reading takes place Im straining at the skeptic leash to see Janice's recommended medium.Personally I dont think he/she exsists.
Oh whats a blue book,by the way?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

The apparitions experienced during NDEs and deathbed visions will certainly be of the same type...

Maybe you only define "ghosts" as those which seem to be akin to an old recording of some past event...

No, I specifcally defined it as "that thing which Most Haunted tries to find, though they don't exist."

I agree that it is a limited definition, but there you go.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Dr A,do you not think Janice is wasting everyone's time.Having been to a psychic fair today

I'll remind you that you promised a report with pictures.

 

[Azrael 5]

I'll remind you that you promised a report with pictures.

I shall deliver on my promises,as soon as time permits.But I got a reading-sadly not one on one! Details,coming up.By the way paj,you should be back in at DB forum.

 

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian

I'm betting you can't supply the proof for your claim.

Nope I can supply plenty of evidence for my claim. How many hours do you want to spend in a mortuary waiting on a dead person to speak? We can expand that and include graveyards and cemeteries. How about crash sites, hospitals and retirement homes?

The most you could say is that we do not detect dead peoples' consciousnesses, therefore they have ceased to exist.

Let’s see. Once the brain shuts down the consciousness ceases to exist. Once a brain has sustained enough damage the consciousness ceases to exist as well. Mind is dependant upon matter. If this were not so, damage to the brain would not significantly impair a person or change their outlook and behavior. However, it has repeatedly been observed that brain damage does all those things and more.

But that is unconvincing for many many reasons which I could elaborate upon if you so desired. For a kick-off, if the world is physically closed we do not even detect peoples' consciousnesses even when they are alive.

You’re ignorant. Go learn something. We regularly detect people’s consciousnesses while they are alive.

What about the ghosts encountered in, say, NDEs? Do they not exist? Even if they don't exist, are they experienced?

NDEs? Oxygen not reaching the brain and the brain starts to shut down. Endorphin release. Cultural based visions. What’s not to understand in a general way? The specifics may not yet be understood but the basic mechanics have long been known.

Janice

As for these blue books, one of the mediums I peronally think are excellent (and have trained with) does a lot of work in the public domain, they most definitely do not use the blue book approach, they demonstrate in front of audiences somestimes with more than 2000 people attending, and do sittings the rest of the week, it would be physically impossible to remember personal details of 40+ people per week, as well as extensive travelling and demonstrations, time would not permit.

Dr Adequate is right. 40+ people a week is easy.

Ossai

 

[Sharon]

Jason - exits and deletes desktop shortcut to JREF. [/B]

Hi Jason

I'm writing this just in case you come back to check if I've replied.

Come back and chat. You might learn something, we might learn something.

I'm not going to write anymore in reply just in case you have gone for good. But if you are still lurking let me know and I'll reply properly.

Sharon

 

[Sharon]

Sharon I have not seen Derren Brown work, and I only draw my opinions by what I have seen in person, but one thing I have seen is quite a few mediums practicing in spiritual churches (a large majority in my opinion giving cold readings, or evidence that could apply to anyone in the audience). I could count on one hand a few who, I personally thought were not cold reading.

Hi Janice.

I found the Messiah( Dereen Brown's show) an education. I too have seen mediums in the spiritualists churches doing readings. To me they are nothing more than cold readings but I don't believe they all are intentionally deceiving others. What I had never seen before on the DB show was someone intentionally doing it, and getting away with it. They interviewed a couple of the people he did readings for and they where blown away. Pity you didn’t see it, it was a fantastic show. Could you tell me who the mediums are as I would be intrested to see them in action for myself.

For me personally, a real medium would be able to locate the person in the audience first time, confirm the relative giving the information (a first name, not just an initial), how they died, where they lived, what they did for a job and describe their personality and physical features. Also give an approximate time of passing (i.e. years / month / day). This is something Derren Brown does not do. This is survival evidence, not cold reading and not making predictions.

Have you seen this in action?

If so how can you be sure they didn't have the info before hand. I remember once reading even Doris Stokes admitted to cheating once or twice. So to me when I read someone as in the public eye as her doing it it's hard to accept that the less well know ones aren't at it too. Well it is to me.

I would be happy to name the mediums that I have met, and think have a genuine ability, but they would only get slated on this forum

Janice part of me can understand why you say this then the other part of me thinks if they are really what they claim they are that they wouldn't give a rats bottom what others say about them. Obviously you do what sits best with you but if it was me I'd post the mediums name, I'd be so confident and excited I'd even arrange a mini bus so people could see for themselves. I really would.

I can only draw my opinions from experience, and appreciate that majority of people on this forum do not believe in mediumship, but unless they have actually gone out there met mediums, attended demonstrations / trance sessions / sceances etc. how can they tell me that what I have experienced and seen is untrue.

I'm not sure but I suspect that they've been around the block , checked out mediums themselves, done the donkey work and still found nothing that can't be explained rationally. Maybe some don't believe in mediumship? I don't know. If they do I suspect they have good reason? But I think it's fair to say that some also wonder if there 'could' be something to it and are gagging for you to post the people you have seen so they can be sure one way or the other?

Sharon

 

[juryjone]

Let’s see. Once the brain shuts down the consciousness ceases to exist. Once a brain has sustained enough damage the consciousness ceases to exist as well. Mind is dependant upon matter. If this were not so, damage to the brain would not significantly impair a person or change their outlook and behavior. However, it has repeatedly been observed that brain damage does all those things and more.

Look out, Ossai - you're about to be tagged with the vilest epithet in Ian's vocabulary - a materialist!

I believe (and Ian please correct me if I'm wrong) that he would especially object to "change their outlook". It is his opinion that, since we connot objectively measure someone's experiences, then we have no way of knowing what their outlook is and whether it has changed due to a brain injury.

I truly hope that Ian never has to test this particular portion of his theory that the mind is separate from the brain.