Evidence of life after death

Clear evidence of life after death

Full article here



We've all heard it before.

Science and religion are at odds... They'll never be able to prove spiritual ideas... We'll never really know if there's life after death... Psychic phonomena can't be proven...

That's the conventional wisdom. But sometimes the conventional wisdom lags behind reality. In other words it takes a few years or decades for society to fully realize and integrate the discoveries made by researchers and scientists.

That's where we are today. Quantum physics, scientific studies of psychic phenomena, new age spirituality... Every day more and more people are realizing "something" is going on, something beyond our 5-sense perception.

It is undeniable that some people have psychic abilities. Crime investigators often turn to recognized psychics when they run out of leads in their investigations. There are countless documented cases where psychics have provided vital information that helped solve the crime.

Some psychics use their ability to help people communicate with their loved ones who have passed on. This is of particular interest, because when psychics can demonstrate a true connection to a departed soul, it really proves two important things:

1)Pyschic ability is real - people can receive information through a "sixth sense" that is not commonly understood

2)We are eternal - this proves that the departed soul is indeed still "alive," just no longer in the body. This shows us we all have a have a soul, and there's a part of each of us that survives death

From time to time, television shows appear that demonstrate a psychic person doing just this - proving to the world that psychic energy is real and we are all eternal beings. This is very important because TV is the most watched commodity and it's the most powerful way to reach many people at once. So when a psychic gets their own TV show, take note!

One such instance is a new show on Lifetime TV Network, called Lisa Williams: Life Among the Dead. When you watch this program the first time, you could be skeptical and suspect that they're just "making it up." It's almost too incredible to believe. But after you watch a few of Lisa's sessions, it starts to become undeniable - they couldn't stage something like this, even if they wanted to. Lisa consistently sits down with people she's never met and has no information about. When she starts to communicate with their deceased loved ones, she hits the nail on the head every single time. She doesn't just give generalistic comments that could apply to anyone. The deceased communicates specific information, stories, even secrets, that only that person could know.

But don't take my word for it. Here on the new Spiritual Mind "blog" I am posting a few clips from the show. Check Lifetime TV schedule and make sure you tune in to the next season.

Full article including video clip of Lisa Williams here

they couldn't stage something like this, even if they wanted to.

It is EXACTLY this kind of thought that magicians rely on in order to perform illusions. People in general just do not comprehend what it is possible to fake.

albert einstein said

the mind is like a parachute: it works best when it's open




crime investigators do not stage their reports when they hire psychics to help them solve crimes.

many scientific experiments have been conducted, in university laboratories, proving the existence of psychic phenomena. it is real. it is proven

this t.v. show is just one example. could this show be staged? maybe. any TV show can be staged. but scientific studies, like those conducted at Stanford, prove beyond all doubt that pyschic ability is real.

the mind is like a parachute: it works best when it's open

*Sigh* Yes I must be closed minded not to believe in psychics - my close mindedness of course having zero effect on whether or not the evidence purported to support psychic phenomena validly leads to that conclusion.

It is highly ironic that people use Albert Einstein to support theories he himself would never hold based on the evidence being presented.

If you want a relevant appeal to authority then one should consider a long-life debunker of these things - a great magician like Houdini for example who exposed some of the many sorts of psychic fraud occurring in the Victorian era. Being able to reproduce the same effects without claiming psychic phenomena is exactly how he did this.

many scientific experiments have been conducted, in university laboratories, proving the existence of psychic phenomena. it is real. it is proven

No such thing has been proven. Scientific investigation has led to the conclusion they do not occur.

this t.v. show is just one example. could this show be staged? maybe.

The point is that it doesn't knowingly have to be staged.

Just because someone is presenting magic tricks as psychic phenomena doesn't mean that they aren't magic tricks in a different presentation format.

but scientific studies, like those conducted at Stanford, prove beyond all doubt that pyschic ability is real.

Cite. It is almost certainly bunk. Just because the research occurred at Stanford does not preclude it being flawed. That is what peer review is all about.

...those who are too afraid of anything unknown to admit that there just might be a thing or three that science has yet to explain.

Like love...nobody really knows what causes it, but it exists. Can't prove it in a lab test, but it's there.

True, there are a lot of frauds who claim to be psychic, but that doesn't mean psychic abilities don't exist.

Among the most fundamentalist, doctrinaire people I know are "skeptical" scientists, who are neither skeptical or scientific. lol
Their only saving grace over the religious true believers is their tendency to be more liberal in political perspective.

Instead of ad hominems, lets stick to the issues at hand, shall we?

:rofl:

Sorry, could not help myself.

For those who don't know, I know varkam well and this was pure jest.

My Evil Atheist Conspiracy contract requires me to focus on ad hominems. Well, without further ado ladies and gentlemen, I give you Santa!

Definitely a result of reason as I experience it ... and before you come back with a true ad hominem :), let's point out that we all see the world from our own bubble.

Anyway, the post wasn't to the OP but to a sub-poster, therefore it didn't comment upon the initial posting. Just ignore it.

from Wikipedia

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.

Here's your post:

Among the most fundamentalist, doctrinaire people I know are "skeptical" scientists, who are neither skeptical or scientific. lol
Their only saving grace over the religious true believers is their tendency to be more liberal in political perspective.

The intended recipient of your post is irrelevant, as the post does not address either (1) points made in the OP or (2) points made by a poster. It is an assertion that people you know who are "'skeptical' scientists'" are actually akin to religious fundamentalists. While I cannot say whether or not that is accurate since I do not know who you know, in this context it is referring to a certain individual (or individuals) and fails to address any points that they made. As a consequence it is an ad hominem argument.

I've merely made an honest expression of my experience with many such people in specific walks of life. You may
not like those observations, but they weren't targeted at you. They weren't ad hominem in the least -- perhaps
only in the Rush Limbaugh sense of the word. lol On its own, my comment is merely a personal observation. It does
not apply to those it doesn't apply to ... simple as that.

As it is, this is a disingenuous tactic you've embraced to keep someone from saying something you don't want them to
say. Try arguing the point rather than stretching the classification of "ad hominem" to your own ad hoc purpose. lol

Now get your last word in so we can stop this ludicrous thread sprouting from my incidental, subjective post. :eyes:

That they are simply not accepting of the evidence because they are fundamentalist, yes?

So therefore it was ad hom.

End.

I was speaking of people I know who are fundamentalist. Obviously, no one who isn't a fundamentalist need take offense.
You've applied the comment to yourself. An ad hominem attack is by its very nature personal and directed. Anyone
who took offense, directed the comment at themselves. Not all atheists are fundamentalist, however any that would take
serious umbrage with the threadOP's comment, would certainly seem to be. Good grief, you guys are getting as reactive
as any dogmatic religion.

This has become a truly tedious thread to a very innocent remark. I'm going to take an agnostic perspective
on it and leave the matter without dogmatic assumptions. Your mileage will vary. :eyes:

You're being intentionally obtuse by asserting otherwise.

Remember?

Ad hominem: Saying that an argument is flawed because of those who propose it.

You: Saying that 'skeptical' scientists were evil fundamentalists, and therefore they would not be reliable. Which is an ad hom vs. them.

Simple.

I guess that means the stuff about how we are reactive as fundamentalist has no legs, then.

Anyway, I DO agree that this side thread is getting tedious. Back to the main! :)

P.S. The idea that one can only be agnostic or dogmatic is a fallacy; there is such thing as a null hypothesis. (That would be interesting to argue about)

:)

I've merely made an honest expression of my experience with many such people in specific walks of life. You may
not like those observations, but they weren't targeted at you.

I never said that they were, nor did I express any affirmation or rejection of your opinion. I know it wasn't directed at me, but it was pretty clearly directed at another person participating in the discussion. Just because it's been your experience doesn't make it any less of an ad hominem argument.

As it is, this is a disingenuous tactic you've embraced to keep someone from saying something you don't want them to
say. Try arguing the point rather than stretching the classification of "ad hominem" to your own ad hoc purpose. lol

You've already said it, so I can hardly keep you from saying it. You're free to say whatever you feel, as you have admirably demonstrated.

No, we are not.

The superstitious people are those who think that every half ass and poorly thought out 'explanation' for something is as good as the next. As such they just don't understand that science rains on their fucking parade not because it is not already part of the conventional wisdom, the perceived scientific dogma, but because YOUR IDEAS ARE REALLY SHITTY.

Sorry, but there it is. Compare something like quantum mechanics to psychic hypotheses? No comparison - quantum mechanics ruins psi's shit. Psi comes to a shooting war bare-fisted.

Like love...nobody really knows what causes it, but it exists. Can't prove it in a lab test, but it's there.

Every time I hear this sort of nauseating 'argument by love is mysterious' I want to puke.

Hey, actually we do know what causes it - it's all about the chemistry. We can manipulate our brains to produce the same feelings without the extraneous context. We know a hell of a lot more about why we think and feel what we do than people want to admit.

Anybody who wants to argue cognition should at least attempt to catch up with what science is saying before saying it can't explain something.

No, demanding love is 'special' is not valid reasoning. You don't get to decide how things work based on how special you want them to be.

True, there are a lot of frauds who claim to be psychic, but that doesn't mean psychic abilities don't exist.

No it doesn't. The onus is on those who claim they do exist to make their case. So far the case consists of hypotheses with no explicative or explanational power based on circumstantial evidences. And by corollary we know how these things can be faked and how people can be conned into believing these things to be true.

Simply put if you want me to choose between faker and real I'm going to assume faker everytime - and you'd better provide a good reason to think otherwise.

perhaps you haven't seen this

EXPERIMENTS WITH URI GELLER at Stanford
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/hambone/g3.html
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/hambone/g5.html

Those scientists were deceived by a very poor magician and were made to look thoroughly foolish when their research got peer reviewed.

Gellar's probably one of the most outed fakes, but despite cock-ups like the recent one he made for some reason people still seem to be impressed by his awesome ability to bend cutlery.

You said:

Those scientists were deceived by a very poor magician and were made to look thoroughly foolish when their research got peer reviewed.

the peer reviews I've seen do the oppposite - they confirm the experiments were valid. One was done at UC Davis and concluded:

“...These evaluations were commissioned by the
American Institutes for Research (AIR) at the request
of Congress and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
The purpose was to assess the validity of psychic
functioning and its potential applications...
“...Using the standards applied to any other area of
science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has
been well established. The statistical results of the
studies examined are far beyond what is expected by
chance. Arguments that these results could be due to
methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly
refuted. Effects of a magnitude similar to those found
in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC
have been replicated at a number of laboratories
around the world. Such consistency cannot be readily
explained by claims of flaws or fraud...
“...There is little benefit in continuing experiments
designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be
offered to anyone who does not accept the current
collection of data.
Jessica Utts, Division of Statistics,
University of California, Davis

And while you're at it, looking up the peer reviews, I have to ask, have you actually looked at the studies done by SRI on Geller? Have you looked at the sketches? How do YOU explain the consistencies? If he "fooled" them, how did he do it? How did he sit in an enclosed, soundproof room, and draw exact copies of what was on a piece of paper in another room? I guess he paid off the scientists?

anyway, in case you haven't actually looked at the evidence, here are some of the drawings that Geller did, in a completely isolated chamber. the target drawing was in another room or another building, and my understanding is that they were sketched AFTER Geller went into the room, so there's no way he could have had access to them beforehand.

You really do think you've got something here.

the peer reviews I've seen do the oppposite - they confirm the experiments were valid.

Sorry. You don't get to pick and choose.

Not to mention that the woman you are quoting is quite clearly biased towards to the paranormal.

Sorry, one flawed statistical analysis does not a peer review make.

And while you're at it, looking up the peer reviews, I have to ask, have you actually looked at the studies done by SRI on Geller?

Seen the videos.

Have you looked at the sketches? How do YOU explain the consistencies? If he "fooled" them, how did he do it? How did he sit in an enclosed, soundproof room, and draw exact copies of what was on a piece of paper in another room?

He didn't. The video I've seen shows him clearly sitting in the same room as the person who is supposed to be 'sending' the image. The protocol was certainly borked as to make the enclosed, soundproof room irrelevant.

I guess he paid off the scientists?

HAHA. You silly man. These are the same tricks done by illusionists who DO NOT claim to use supernatural powers. Paying off the scientists is unnecessary - simply taking advantage of their naivety that they could not be tricked was sufficient.

look up Project Alpha. Open your mind.

Edit: here, I'll do the work for you http://skepdic.com/projectalpha.html

Sid

Please, why don't you show me the peer-review journals where they were published. :rofl::rofl:

C'mon, I'm waiting. :)

You DO know that something has zero scientific credibility, no matter WHO did the damn experiment, until it gets past a review by peers, right?

:rofl:

But hey, I'll keep an open mind. Perhaps you CAN point to peer review journals where this stuff was published. :)

Would you mind explaining that for those of us who see human beings as a product of their genetics, their culture, and chance, none of which they have any control over?

Tell me, how did you calculate the chances that someone gets a lot of non-verbal information about someone but this is insufficient to say anything further?

I assume you've worked out the chance that you would think there is something there when there isn't, and taken the chance that they also would think there is something going on when there isn't, found the function that links you and taken the appropriate product.

OR you could just assume you can't be fooled and return a 99.99% chance that she's a real psychic.

So, go on, what are the chances that someone would be able to fool you about this when there was nothing really going on?

because I know I could probably look it up myself, but what is the current state of research in this area? (ESP and all that) Is there ANY indication from reliable sources (and I'm not including things like cold readings) that support the existence of this kind of stuff?

Yet they keep on banging away at this fruitless area despite having nothing to show for it whatsoever whilst real science has been advancing our knowledge.

Stanford University has led the way with this. One of the most famous experiements they did was with Uri Geller. try googling "Uri Geller Stanford" you'll get some good stuff

A TV show on Lifetime isn't it.

And it most certainly is deniable that people have psychic abilities.

they have done scientific experiments that prove psychic ability is real.

;)

I hope you have a really thick skin. Even I, a hopeless believer, think this site is swiss cheese.

anyone that clicks on this thread has a open mind. As far as a tv show being accurate, have you ever watched the History channel? They have enough factual errors and omissions to make them suspicious of some type of agenda.
I wish one of these psychics would get a real job. The psychic mechanic, the psychic IT man. Problem solved.

But after you watch a few of Lisa's sessions, it starts to become undeniable - they couldn't stage something like this, even if they wanted to.

If you believe that, then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Just a post in support of life after death. Personal experience has shown me it is real. Those who haven't had such experiences are often skeptical, and tend to close their minds to such perceptions. And the power of mind is awesome! That's ok--that is where they are at. But looking down the threads, it appeared you weren't getting a lot of agreement, so thought I'd add to the discussion.

The point the skeptics are trying to get you to acknowledge is that personal experience can be faulty. You would be unwise to assume that we have not had these sorts of experiences.

but you have interpreted them differently than I have.

You don't understand quantum physics, you have no interest in quantum physics, and you cannot even begin to explain how quantum physics has anything to do with your life after death mysticism.

find anything in any of the peer review journals - stanford or not, that actually supports the idea that any experiments were in the least successful.

There was a couple of things, letters to 'nature' by the looks of it, that claimed evil scientists just hated them for their results, but I can't find any of these results or nothing.

Please, post some. By the way, I've been to a helluva lot more than google, so don't go tell me to google it myself.

Oh peer review journals, where are you? Have you fled this place to leave us with no evidence of these psychics abilities?

:)

I'm waiting in rather eager anticipation.

so it's not surprising you haven't found their peer-reviewed articles. They're all available on the Spirinternet, however. You just need a router that believes.

OK, THAT is the funniest thing I've read in a long time.

Thanks.

I have had many dreams where not long after, something occurred relating to the dreams. And those events were too darn close to the dreams to be coincidences.

because I wondered if that feeling of "having dreamed it" when confronted with an event was simply mental gymnastics or something that could really happen. One Thanksgiving I was visiting my parents, as was my brother and his family. We had eaten and done dishes and everyone was getting ready to go when my father, who had gone out to the field, came running up saying, "There's a grass fire!" It had been very dry, and we all raced to put it out before it got out of hand, which could have happened. When we were done, my father said, "Boy, I'm glad you all hadn't left yet. I couldn't have put it out by myself!"

The whole episode had a feeling of deja vu. When I got home, I went to my dream journal and found a dream I'd had in July. It was a description of us getting into our cars in front of my parent's house, and my father running from the field yelling fire.

The problem is that with a large collection of possible stories sometimes you're going to get a hit. Doesn't mean you have any more foreknowledge than that anyone can have who is familiar with the 'stories of life' in general.

I was just explaining one experience I had that I found remarkable. That's all I was talking about. The fact that there had never been a field fire before-or after- this incident. And the description of my father running down the hill and coming up a certain side of the house was eerily accurate. Sure, there is always a possibility when one has a large body of work that there will be a hit once in a while. I'm not arguing that. I was just commenting on the fact that the dream's details were so accurate--and that it was because of this previous dream that I had a sense of "deja vu".

Don't you think that there is a possibility that the feeling of "deja vu" may come from dreams that are similar to an experience one has had?

Human memory is notoriously unreliable. It is again a product of the way our minds work.

N/T

Namely that we have a feeling of 'memory recall' - it is only sufficient that we have the feeling of recall, not that we are actually recalling anything. As such having an actual memory that reflect reality to recall is irrelevant.

you are discounting the whole concept of memory, saying it tends to be faulty and prone to deluding itself. Have I understood you correctly?

I am merely pointing out the fact that human memory recall can be faulty.

If you think it is infallible then you are free to state why.

and I daresay most folks my age would back you up on that. I'm just trying to figure out your stance on memory and how it relates to deja vu. If memory is faulty, couldn't it take some fragments from dreams and use them to create the feeling of "been there before"? Maybe not all incidents of deja vu, but some of them?

The problem with the proponents of precognition is that they tend to propose precognition that is fuzzy as hell.

I was talking about the phenomenom called "deja vu" and what might cause it to happen. To my mind,remembering dream fragments and fitting them into a similar situation could be a factor. To me that makes more sense than simply saying deja vu is caused by a change in brain chemistry or something.

The whole point is that things can happen in our minds that do not make sense and our attempt to make sense of them can lead to faulty conclusions about the true origins of the effect.

I'm trying to find out what you think the true origins of deja vu are.

The basic point is that we have a feeling of recall entirely separate from actually recalling memory.

That's what I'm getting at--do you think it is merely a chemical reaction or something else?

Just like every other thought, feeling or whatever going on inside your brain.

Thank you.

When, in reality, it breaks up the events into small little bits and tosses them all into a bin. When it wants to recall something it'll reach in and pull out all the bits it can find and fill in the gaps with likely scenarios. That's a bit of a poor example, but the purpose is just to illustrate the memories can be notoriously unreliable - especially when it comes to things like eyewitness testimony and identification.

Two hemisperes out of whack, I hear. Though it's been a long time.

Just send me $100 and I'll put you in touch with any dead relative you want. I even do pets: $50 for dogs, $75 for cats (they're harder to get to talk once they're dead).

I grabbed two bags...I gave one to the person in front of me, and I held on to the other. I asked a series of questions.

1) Please think of a colour, write it down, and put it in the bag. I will do the same. After we had put the answers into our respective bags, I asked..."So, what colour did you pick?" He said white, and I winced and pretended I had it wrong.

2) Think of an instrument? He put Oboe...again, I winced after he told me.

3) Think of a proper name..any name. He put Claudia....I looked really disappointed

4) Think of a letter. He put the Alpha latin sign....I made a big stink and complained that it was unfair, but moved on.

5) Think of a vegetable. He put radish.

Then, when we looked at our answers in the bag, we compared answers. I got them all right except for the last one...I guessed carrot. Alpha, white, Claudia...all of em.

Lol...it was hilarious. I love magic.

Heres the trick: http://www.goodtricks.net/mind-reading-learn-to-read-mind.html