How do psychic mediums know stuff about you

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Scorpion

I think an atheist has a view of the world stuck in the most mundane view...

Skeptics see the world as the tested evidence portrays it. If that's not exciting or fun enough for you, that's not a failing on the part of skepticism. Your unwillingness to distinguish fact from fiction doesn't mean everyone else is "stuck," or that you are blessed with some special insight.

Quote:

Atheists keep calling the world and their experience of it as 'reality' I do not think they have any idea what 'reality' is.

...says the diagnosed schizophrenic. When, by your own admission, the law has to drag you away from the victims of your paranoia, you don't get to set yourself up as the oracle of what is real. Not caring about the difference between fact and a fertile imagination doesn't imbue you with a superior sense of what is real. AmyW brought up the fact that people are fooled every day by folks claiming to inhabit the same "reality" as you advocate. Can you explain why your "reality" and the demonstrably gullible have that in common? Moreover, you were given the chance to discuss "absolute truth" in the thread you began with that laughably contrived anecdote about a philosophy class. You abandoned that one as soon as it stopped being about religious superiority. You say you want to hold atheists' feet to the fire, but when it comes down to it you don't have any material that rises above pure animus.

Quote:

The theme of my next thread.

The notion of quantum mechanics as somehow challenging the observation of reality at the macro stage is a common pseudo-science wank. No, Capra's claims are not scientific or based in physics just because he was once a physicist. We can save you the trouble. Trying to equivocate on "reality" by waving your hands vaguely at quantum mechanics is not a trick that has worked here the twenty previous times it has been attempted.

Quote:

I do think some atheists may be scared of facing the possibility of psychic people with knowledge they know nothing about. Because they would not know the rules. They would be lost in the unknown. Their world view would be shattered.

Let me yank you back from your fantasy world. If you can provide any rigorous evidence of a genuine medium, skeptics would be completely on your side. As much as you want to portray skeptics as fretful little chipmunks cowering in the bushes from your superior intellect and insight, the fact remains that the only reason skeptics disagree with you is because you don't have any evidence and you know it. And your "genuine mediums" refuse to cooperate in obtaining it. Your history shows you don't know "the rules" either. You've been shown time after time just making it up as you go, advocating and discarding notions arbitrarily as they relate to the argument of the day.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Scorpion

Bertrand Russell, arguably one of the best minds of the 20th century, was an agnostic not an atheist. Because he knew there was not enough information to know if there is a God or not.

Has nothing to do with the thread or with the questions you've been asked in it. Purely a dig at atheists. And not even a very accurate summary of Russell.

[8enotto]

Originally Posted by Scorpion

I think an atheist has a view of the world stuck in the most mundane view and interpretation of scientific findings. Atheists keep calling the world and their experience of it as 'reality' I do not think they have any idea what 'reality' is. The theme of my next thread.
I do think some atheists may be scared of facing the possibility of psychic people with knowledge they know nothing about. Because they would not know the rules. They would be lost in the unknown. Their world view would be shattered.

You will be asked to present more than you have offered before as evidence. Fake Indian said so in her 1934 book or " I felt " are not things we can test. Not the things you can repeat at will.

Many of us would actually love to see you whip up some mystical magic, something just way out of known limits.

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by AmyW

Ahh I see, I just can't fathom why these people want to lie purely for money!!

And that's exactly what makes you an easy mark for folks like this. A decent, wholesome person such as yourself assumes other people act in good faith, like you do. But they don't, because they're bad people. You can't make sense of bad people because you are good. Therefore, you assume person isn't lying, etc., and the next thing you know you're asking a skeptic's forum how psychics work. They don't. They're lying/cheating.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Has nothing to do with the thread or with the questions you've been asked in it. Purely a dig at atheists. And not even a very accurate summary of Russell.

Indeed. A much more enhanced description of his stated reasoning is here:
Bertrand Russell Atheist versus Agnostic

[The Shrike]

Characterizing atheists as closed-minded dolts terrified of learning the truth about the spiritual realm ignores the intellectual journey to atheism from those who started out spiritual. Try to imagine the open-mindedness it takes to critically evaluate one's core belief system, especially considering the role that belief plays in familial and other interpersonal relationships, traditions, etc. Now imagine the courage it takes to admit to oneself and one's family that the entirety of that experience is based on superstitious nonsense.

Some of us are born into an irreligious life and it's fairly easy to resist ensnarement because religion and spirituality is such obvious crap. But for those of us who were religiously indoctrinated literally before birth, a willful rejection of spirituality is not taken lightly. It's the result of years of careful introspection and a strong motivation to quash those doubts. Whatever being closed-minded is, atheists are the opposite of it.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by AmyW

Thanks guys, how do these mediums convince themselves they are not lying.

Not all do. Some rationalize their deception by claiming that they're helping people work through grief, and that the ends justify the means. We can all sympathize with the notion of telling little white lies if we think it spares people some distress.

In other cases it's simply living the lie for long enough. I know of people who have even passed polygraph tests on the basis of this phenomenon. You tell yourself you're a medium. You tell other people that you are. You act as if you are a medium. You do this for a long time. After long enough it's second nature and thus not something you consciously think about.

Quote:

Do they really believe themselves that they can speak to a dead person?

Ultimately that's something only each would-be medium can answer for themselves. I've had friends who claimed to be mediums. These are people I don't suspect of intentional deception, for a gestalt of reasons that you can infer from the notion of friendship. But there we are. No, I didn't believe them, but I never found out whether they believed themselves. Absent evidence of deception, I treated them as if they believed their own claims.

I've also known a handful of people -- not friends, for apparent reasons -- who have admitted in private they don't have the supernatural gifts they claim in public to have. How do they rationalize it? I have no idea.

[sackett]

Grabby old Bertie Russell was one of the best minds of the 20th. century? What? Jeeziss. Let's hear some more from arguably one of the lesser minds of Oct. 5, 2019. In the mid-evening of Mointain Standard Time here in the US.

Oh but I do grow weary sometimes.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Characterizing atheists as closed-minded dolts terrified of learning the truth about the spiritual realm ignores the intellectual journey to atheism from those who started out spiritual. Try to imagine the open-mindedness it takes to critically evaluate one's core belief system, especially considering the role that belief plays in familial and other interpersonal relationships, traditions, etc. Now imagine the courage it takes to admit to oneself and one's family that the entirety of that experience is based on superstitious nonsense.

This idea that sceptics reject religion and superstition because they are afraid of the truth is one of the most annoying canards of all. Personally I would love to believe that my consciousness will continue after death, and if phenomena like telepathy were verified it would open up all sorts of interesting new fields of science. As you say, the journey to the point where I felt I had no choice but to reject such comforting and exciting beliefs was a painful one. To be accused of close mindedness by people whose own minds are firmly closed to the ample evidence that demonstrates their worldview to be utterly mistaken rankles.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Scorpion

I do think some atheists may be scared of facing the possibility of psychic people with knowledge they know nothing about. Because they would not know the rules. They would be lost in the unknown. Their world view would be shattered.

Completely wrong. I would love psychic people to exist, but reality does not conform to what I would like, and everything points to the fact that psychics are criminal frauds, or at best just deluded. Your anecdotes only tell me that you have been had by people who were smarter than you are, and that you are too much of a blockhead to admit it.

Your own illness that makes you believe that the voices in your head are real, may be a factor that makes you an easier mark than others.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Scorpion

Bertrand Russell, arguably one of the best minds of the 20th century, was an agnostic not an atheist. Because he knew there was not enough information to know if there is a God or not.

The distinction between agnostic and atheists is a foolish one, unless we are discussing those hopefully few atheists who are fools themselves and believe that atheism is a proven fact.

Every atheist I have met knew that of course you can define a god so that he or she is impossible to detect. When you are dealing with magic and a lack of logical consequences, anything is possible.

A specific god, on the other hand, like the Christian god, are easy to disprove, at least if you stick to the scriptures. If you listen to how Christians define their god, it is more like nailing jelly to the wall. Actually much like when you describe the rules that govern spirits.

My own atheism works on the concept that there is not the slightest evidence that the ideas of theists are not man-made, and as disproofs go, this is as good as it gets. You can call it agnosticism if you like.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Scorpion

I have had many personal very evidential messages through different mediums in different churches from the 1960s onwards. The sum of my experience is some mediums are genuine, and they told me facts about myself and my family.



The most evidential message I had was from a brother who I did not even know I had, who died as a baby in the war. When a medium gave me a message from him, and gave me his name, it was the first I had ever heard of him. My mother had never spoken of it, and my mother had never been to the church.

But as you have demonstrated you are a very unreliable narrator, with all your recollections and claims that we can "verify" you have proved to be wrong time and time again. The evidence is that your recollection of your "evidential messages" is more than likely also wrong.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Scorpion

Bertrand Russell, arguably one of the best minds of the 20th century, was an agnostic not an atheist. Because he knew there was not enough information to know if there is a God or not.

Have you considered following his example, as you clearly admire him so much?

[Butter!]

Originally Posted by Scorpion

I have told my story of messages I have received through mediums many times on this forum already, but atheists cannot even consider a medium might be genuine, because it would shatter their world.

As far as I am concerned some mediums can talk to the spirits of the departed.

It wouldn't shatter my world. I'd think it was great. I'd run right out and find the nearest "legit" medium so I could summon my Grandma. She died during a time when I was estranged from my parents. She was living with them, so I didn't really get to see her. She badly wanted me and my parents to make up, but we didn't do it in time, and one day I got an EMAIL informing me that she was dead. Because of all the family tension, I ended up missing her funeral. I've regretted it every day since, and the guilt and grief tear me apart at times.

I would do damn near anything to speak to her and apologize profusely for my absence in her life at the end. She was one of the greatest people I ever knew, and I let petty drama cause me to abandon her. I have to live with that.

So honestly, Scorpion, you can toss your smug little assumptions right in the trash where they belong. You have absolutely no idea why the various "atheists" here choose to reject your belief system. "Shatter my world," as if. Some of us just see reality for what it is, no matter how badly we might want it to be very different.

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by isissxn

"Shatter my world,"

Let's see here: A)

• Meet the grandparents who died before I was born.
• Converse with my great-great grandfather, for whom I was named, who was the first of our clan to immigrate to the New World.
• Hug Marilyn Monroe.
• Say hi to Jesus, 'cause he seemed pretty cool.
• Sit down for a chat with Martin Luther King, Jr., Otzi, Sitting Bull, Amelia Earhart, Charles Darwin...
• Never actually die.

Versus, B) blink out like a closet light.

A) sounds a lot better to me, but wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.

[jadebox]

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC

Not really. I'm not sure when this event occurred, but a quick check of Jadebox's profile shows an age of 57. I'd venture to guess a good majority of 57 year olds have lost a parent, or more likely two.

(Sorry Jadebox, not trying to be a creeper!)

No problem.

I didn't know the person. It was in a group situation where she may have heard something said about me. But, it was more likely just my age and a random guess.

She first asked if my father had died recently. If I had said "no" it would have stopped there. So, she knew that my father had died because I told her.

He had died a little over a year earlier, so not "recently" as I would define it, but close enough. At first I assumed she knew me and I just didn't recognize her so my first feeling was that was a bit late to be offering sympathy.

Then, when she started talking about being psychic, my feelings went quickly from confused to annoyed. Later I felt angry when I realized how what she had done might have affected someone else.

[AmyW]

Wow some awesome and insightful comments, thank you so much. Atheism is a term I hate because it brands something.... Basically I believe in what I see and feel. I don't believe in some bearded man in the sky, I believe we are created by our parents, no more no less. When we die we die. I've worked in care, I've seen people from being mentally sound to deteriation because of dementia/old age, they are no longer whom they used to be because of damage to the brain, because that's all we are flesh and blood.

[xterra]

I'll go off topic for a second here.

"Atheism is a term I hate because it brands something"

AmyW, please explain what you mean by this.


Most atheists take one of two positions:

A. I am not convinced that a supernatural power (god, or whatever you want to call it) exists.

B. I am convinced that a supernatural power (god, or whatever you want to call it) does not exist.

(If the difference isn't clear, replace "supernatural power" with "colorless green squirrel.")


Neither of these positions says anything about beliefs or philosophies or dogmas, or whatever else non-atheists believe atheists believe.

[JayUtah]

(Quotes gratuitously rearranged to suit my selfish purposes.)

Originally Posted by isissxn

"Shatter my world," as if. Some of us just see reality for what it is, no matter how badly we might want it to be very different.

Originally Posted by Pixel42

This idea that sceptics reject religion and superstition because they are afraid of the truth is one of the most annoying canards of all. Personally I would love to believe that my consciousness will continue after death, and if phenomena like telepathy were verified it would open up all sorts of interesting new fields of science.

A number of fringe genres rely on the "shatter their world" meme. Historical and political conspiracy theories (faked Moon missions, JFK assassination) characterize their critics as unable to cope with anything but the party line delivered by the government. UFO claimants argue that the world as a whole is unready to learn of the existence of space aliens, so the powers that be must keep the evidence buttoned up. The spiritualists are no different, it seems. The prospect of mind-body duality or life extending after death is not in and of itself mind-blowing. It's just not supported by any evidence.

Somehow the claimants are always immune to any mind-blowing effect they say would occur, owing to their superior intellect, open-mindedness, "holistic" thinking ability, or advanced spiritual enlightenment. It doesn't take much to see that these variations on the same theme of exceptional mental preparedness on the part of the claimant is what is really being claimed. So many of these arguments boil down to ego reinforcement.

Claimants can rarely present any evidence that they are superior to their critics in any mental or other capacity, nor any evidence that their critics are necessary lacking. The amusing argument that takes the place of that evidence generally falls into one or both of two categories. in one argument, the claimant circularly argues that rejection of the claim is evidence of the critic's unreadiness. That's pure supposition, of course. In the other argument, the claimant invents a new way for him to be superior. These inventions carry such names as "holistic thinker" or "spiritual maturity."

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Whatever being closed-minded is, atheists are the opposite of it.

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Characterizing atheists as closed-minded dolts terrified of learning the truth about the spiritual realm ignores the intellectual journey to atheism from those who started out spiritual.

Originally Posted by Pixel42

To be accused of close mindedness by people whose own minds are firmly closed to the ample evidence that demonstrates their worldview to be utterly mistaken rankles.

Another indicator of the shallowness of argumentation from the frnge. Claimants very much want open-mindedness to mean accepting the claim du jour without any critical thought or evidence. Here the claim is for spirits and genuine mediums, and the claimant wants that to be taken at face value despite common knowledge of such things as entertainment novelties.

To the rest of the world, open-mindedness means being willing to listen to someone's idea. It doesn't mean accepting it non-critically. We've listened to Scorpion's ideas about the afterlife, telepathy, etc. over and over again. And over. And again. In contrast, the fringe claimants never seem open to the idea that their various theories can have ordinary, mundane explanations. They must be wondrous and magnificent, to validate the magnificence of their mode of thinking. Scorpion is abjectly closed-minded to the notion that his "genuine mediums" may be the ordinary charlatans of the day, doing what we know they do.

Originally Posted by isissxn

So honestly, Scorpion, you can toss your smug little assumptions right in the trash where they belong. You have absolutely no idea why the various "atheists" here choose to reject your belief system.

Which speaks to the heart of my question. Does Scorpion actually have a point that's relevant to this or any thread? Or does he just come here to be smug, collect his criticism, and bemoan his station?

[P.J. Denyer]

With all due respect for JayUtah's loquaciousness, eloquence, wisdom and all round good sense, I'll stick to twenty words or less.

Quote:

They laughed at Galileo and they laughed at Copernicus, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown

[Lothian]

One of my favourite magic tricks is the disappearing item where in front of the audience 'assistant' the magician shakes the hand containing the item up and down before releasing and throwing the item over the dupe's head, at which point they stop shaking the hand and reveal it to be empty.
What is great about this 'magic' is everyone can see what is happening and how it is done apart from the dupe. They can't see it as they are too close to where the 'magic' happens.
I suspect Scorpion is too close to his church. He can't see what is obvious to everyone else.

[arthwollipot]

Penn and Teller said it well when they said that you never want to know how a magic trick is done because it's always extremely disappointing.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Penn and Teller said it well when they said that you never want to know how a magic trick is done because it's always extremely disappointing.

I'll have to disagree with all three of you. Sometimes a magic trick is so clever, artful and skillful that knowing how it is done fills me with awe and amazement.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Penn and Teller said it well when they said that you never want to know how a magic trick is done because it's always extremely disappointing.

I'm a great believer that the difference between a non-magician and a (potential) magician is whether or not you feel a crushing sense of disappointment when you learn how it's done.

[JayUtah]

I actually know what Penn & Teller mean by this. Well, Teller anyway. I had a discussion with him about it (yes, he can talk) before they became famous and such discussions became rare commodities.

What they mean is that the secret behind many tricks is dirt simple, and often far more straightforward than the viewer predicts. It's disappointing for two reasons. First, we want to believe that stage magic is uncommonly clever, and it's pleasing to be shown clever things that work. Being shown a simple something that we already suspected but couldn't prove is less exciting. Second, and paradoxically, we want to believe that we can be fooled only by very clever things. It's a blow to the ego to discover that the assistant merely arranges herself strategically in the deceptively ample box to avoid the swords. We wanted it to be more complicated than that because the whole premise of the trick -- our minds tell us -- is that the box is too small.

That's the nugget of truth for this thread. We all like to think we're smart enough not to be fooled by such "obvious" tricks as cold reading, or as straightforward a trick as someone looking up information about us that we thought was obscure. Sad fact is that our notion of what is possible and impossible is too often misinformed and misconceived.

That would seem to cut both ways. Who are we to say that spirits and mediums are impossible? Not us -- we don't say it's impossible, just that there's no evidence to support that as the explanation for our observations. What we have evidence for are such things as hot and cold readings, which are intended to play against our mistaken beliefs for what is possible. They aim to deceive, and often succeed because they are aimed well. It is the proponent of "genuine mediums" who have the entrenched notions of what must be impossible, and the so-called mediums use that to great effect. They know we won't want to believe that we were fooled by such mundane means.

[kali1137]

I had to nominate Jay's post as this was just too perfectly stated not to.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Penn and Teller said it well when they said that you never want to know how a magic trick is done because it's always extremely disappointing.

Load of rubbish, not knowing how a trick is done is extremely disappointing. The flimflam of a magician's act is boring, knowing how they are doing the trick makes it interesting for me.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Darat

Load of rubbish, not knowing how a trick is done is extremely disappointing. The flimflam of a magician's act is boring, knowing how they are doing the trick makes it interesting for me.

I'm of both minds. I frequently have to come up with stagecraft to achieve some particular effect. (Cf. my avatar) So when I see a particularly well done effect, I'm quite curious to see how it was accomplished. Professional curiosity, yes. But also just ordinary curiosity. I admire when people exhibit great skill at whatever they do. Knowing what they do to accomplish it is part of the admiration.

But sometimes -- and this is just me talking -- I want to turn off my brain and let the performance have its desired effect. Again as a practitioner of the theatrical arts, I can't let that aspect slide. Yes, stage magic is flim-flam, but so is Hamilton. It's entertaining flim-flam, and what's what I'm in the mood for sometimes.

[DuvalHMFIC]

I like the mystery of not knowing how it's done. Once I know the trick, there is no interesting aspect to it anymore. It's fun to just sit back and say "wow" every now and again.

My only exception would be card tricks, since I can actually do those once I learn how. I'm not about to run out and buy a box to put swords in, though, so I'd rather just be entertained by it.

[xjx388]

I’m when I was a kid, I was always just like, “So that’s all there is to it? A Fake thumb?” But the gimmick is only a small part of it as I came to realize. The real trick is the skill involved in making that gimmick undetectable. That’s what I admire in a magician.

If psychics were billed as mere entertainment, I’d admire the skill involved too.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by xjx388

If psychics were billed as mere entertainment, I’d admire the skill involved too.

I've seen Derren Brown doing mentalism live, it was incredible.

[AmyW]

Originally Posted by xterra

I'll go off topic for a second here.

"Atheism is a term I hate because it brands something"

AmyW, please explain what you mean by this.


Most atheists take one of two positions:

A. I am not convinced that a supernatural power (god, or whatever you want to call it) exists.

B. I am convinced that a supernatural power (god, or whatever you want to call it) does not exist.

(If the difference isn't clear, replace "supernatural power" with "colorless green squirrel.")


Neither of these positions says anything about beliefs or philosophies or dogmas, or whatever else non-atheists believe atheists believe.

Sorry if I sounded confusing. I do not believe in a god/creator of any sort, I also don't believe in spirits etc.... I just hate that we are branded as atheists, we are realists, believing in something unseen is irrational nonsense

[xterra]

If you don't believe in spirits, why do you (appear to) believe in mediums who claim to channel spirits?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Darat

Load of rubbish, not knowing how a trick is done is extremely disappointing. The flimflam of a magician's act is boring, knowing how they are doing the trick makes it interesting for me.

JayUtah pretty much nailed it for me.

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

JayUtah pretty much nailed it for me.

Agreed. There was a study I read years back (can't find now and busy) that said that in some circumstances smarter people were easier to fool as they thought they were too smart to be fooled. I saw this with a friend who has lost the plot a bit with internal martial arts and the so-called "etheric chi" because he "was in a cynical mood and couldn't be fooled". Occam wants his razor back if nobody's using it.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Wudang

Agreed. There was a study I read years back (can't find now and busy) that said that in some circumstances smarter people were easier to fool as they thought they were too smart to be fooled. I saw this with a friend who has lost the plot a bit with internal martial arts and the so-called "etheric chi" because he "was in a cynical mood and couldn't be fooled". Occam wants his razor back if nobody's using it.

I think that's pretty much the reason that stage magicians originally got involved in 'paranormal' research.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

I'm of both minds. I frequently have to come up with stagecraft to achieve some particular effect. (Cf. my avatar) So when I see a particularly well done effect, I'm quite curious to see how it was accomplished. Professional curiosity, yes. But also just ordinary curiosity. I admire when people exhibit great skill at whatever they do. Knowing what they do to accomplish it is part of the admiration.

But sometimes -- and this is just me talking -- I want to turn off my brain and let the performance have its desired effect. Again as a practitioner of the theatrical arts, I can't let that aspect slide. Yes, stage magic is flim-flam, but so is Hamilton. It's entertaining flim-flam, and what's what I'm in the mood for sometimes.

Yeah I know it's a personal thing and yes sometimes folk do want to switch off their brain and just experience something.

My comment was mainly at the Penns of the world coming up with this as a post hoc rationalisation for their professional secrecy. I've also been lucky to have conversations with the likes of Randi and Teller and it is quite obvious that not explaining tricks is a matter of professional secrets and nowt to do with spoiling it for their audience. Magicians like fooling people, they like the aura of secrecy, and they often like selling their secrets or services for money.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by xterra

If you don't believe in spirits, why do you (appear to) believe in mediums who claim to channel spirits?

You are doing AmyW a massive disservice with this question. A question that indicates that you have not taken as much as a minute or so to chart her journey through this thread.

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by Darat

Load of rubbish, not knowing how a trick is done is extremely disappointing. The flimflam of a magician's act is boring, knowing how they are doing the trick makes it interesting for me.

I remember watching one of David Copperfield's TV specials, and it was exciting when the stage lights shifted during a trick and my knowledge of physics suddenly made me realize how the trick worked.
"Oh!! That glass is actually a partially reflective surface. Cool."

[JoeMorgue]

Regardless not wanting to know the "secret" to increase your own personal enjoyment is functionally very different from "I demand everyone help me maintain the illusion that there is no secret and it's really magic."