# Channeled Material **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 8, 2014, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710 "2014-10-08T00:49:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![HenryH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dfb087/32.png) [@HenryH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HenryH)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/141 "2014-10-09T18:10:32Z")
“OP, there IS no strong evidence to lead one to conclude that psychic phenomena exist.” Does channeling necessarily have to be labeled as “psychic phenomena”? If its just letting the subconscious have full access to the body, akin to what happens in the pendulum experiment I mentioned previously, then channeling could be placed into a different category. Or at least discussed somewhat. ---
**Author:** ![HenryH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dfb087/32.png) [@HenryH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HenryH)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/142 "2014-10-09T18:14:08Z")
> [@](#): > > If you want to assert that Jane Roberts is a legitimate medium then you should probably have a list of at least 5 reasons that lend credibility to her claim As I said earlier: > [@](#): > > There’s no quick way to explain why. Basically you would have to read “Seth Speaks”, “The Seth Material”, watch the few videos of the actual channelling of Seth that’s available and listen to all accounts of the people that attended the sessions live and also of all people that knew Jane Roberts. One comes to the solid conclusion that she’s a decent person not trying to fake anything, would not be capable of faking to such a degree in any case, and that everyone feels, sees and hears a different personality during the channelling itself. Maybe someone else with a better memory could list you 5 reasons off the top of his/her head, but not me, sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/143 "2014-10-09T18:17:07Z")
> [@HenryH](#): > > For the third time: You can read “Seth Speaks”, “The Seth Material” by Jane Roberts (the medium) or watch the few videos of the actual channelling of Seth that’s available and listen to all accounts of the people that attended the sessions live and also of all people that knew Jane Roberts. Also you can read “The Unobstructed Universe” or listen to the [radio show](http://www.skeptiko.com/205-michael-tymn-explores-the-forgotten-history-of-psychic-mediums/) mentioned earlier. > > I don’t have a current example that I am myself certain about. But why does it have to be current? The “Tuning In - Spirit Channelers In America” video is interesting if you want something current but it not overly convincing. It’s all I know off the top of my head that is current that is worth a look. Gone the “Seth” route and was incredibly unimpressed. The reason why a current medium is required is because we need to examine said medium for accuracy in predictions and information given. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/144 "2014-10-09T18:21:57Z")
> [@HenryH](#): > > “OP, there IS no strong evidence to lead one to conclude that psychic phenomena exist.” > > Does channeling necessarily have to be labeled as “psychic phenomena”? If its just letting the subconscious have full access to the body, akin to what happens in the pendulum experiment I mentioned previously, then channeling could be placed into a different category. Or at least discussed somewhat. If all channeling is is “letting the subconscious have full access to the body”, then how is it a psychic phenomenon? We can reach into the subconscious and pull out lots of weird stuff. None of it violates the known laws of physics or requires psychic powers to explain it. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/145 "2014-10-09T18:22:00Z")
> [@HenryH](#): > > “OP, there IS no strong evidence to lead one to conclude that psychic phenomena exist.” > > Does channeling necessarily have to be labeled as “psychic phenomena”? If its just letting the subconscious have full access to the body, akin to what happens in the pendulum experiment I mentioned previously, then channeling could be placed into a different category. Or at least discussed somewhat. If you are going to persist in calling it “channeling”, then we are going to have to insist on having to call it “psychic phenomena”. When you refer to it as a psychological problem, we can talk about it as a psychological problem. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/146 "2014-10-09T18:23:35Z")
> [@](#): > > One comes to the solid conclusion that she’s a decent person not trying to fake anything, would not be capable of faking to such a degree in any case, and that everyone feels, sees and hears a different personality during the channelling itself. That’s not evidence. That’s wishful thinking. I didn’t come to that conclusion. In fact, I came to the exact opposite conclusion - she’s knowingly faking it for money and fame. So we’re back to square one. By what criteria did you reason that she’s not capable of faking that? It seems pretty easy to me. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/147 "2014-10-09T18:24:15Z")
> [@HenryH](#): > > “OP, there IS no strong evidence to lead one to conclude that psychic phenomena exist.” > > Does channeling necessarily have to be labeled as “psychic phenomena”? If its just letting the subconscious have full access to the body, akin to what happens in the pendulum experiment I mentioned previously, then channeling could be placed into a different category. Or at least discussed somewhat. :dubious: I think what’s going on here is that we’re all looking at a horse and you want us to pretend it’s a zebra without stripes. How do we have a meaningful discussion when your hypothesis begins, “Pretend…”? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/148 "2014-10-09T18:27:00Z")
How True Believers scrutinize mediums and other assorted psychics in today’s society: Take one telescope, smear both ends with petroleum jelly, look through the wrong end and declare “How can you not see that fuzzy brightness and not believe?” ---
**Author:** ![HenryH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dfb087/32.png) [@HenryH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HenryH)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/149 "2014-10-09T18:41:32Z")
> [@](#): > > Gone the “Seth” route and was incredibly unimpressed. The reason why a current medium is required is because we need to examine said medium for accuracy in predictions and information given. For the millionth time the material transmitted is not the issue here. I myself think a lot of it, possibly all, is bogus. Its whether or not the channeling is real is the issue. > [@](#): > > I didn’t come to that conclusion. In fact, I came to the exact opposite conclusion - she’s knowingly faking it for money and fame. Have you watched the videos also? If so then fair enough. We all see what we want to see, this as much as it applies to me applies to you also. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/150 "2014-10-09T18:42:06Z")
> [@HenryH](#): > > There are some more from [RationalWiki](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Fine_Art_of_Baloney_Detection): > I’ve skipped some I though were not relevant or have been covered above. > _Appeal to ignorance: If something is not known to be false, it must be true._ > We’d need to switch this around to be applicable: If something is not known to be true, it must be false. Again the mediums can’t be proven to be genuine so this is applicable. > > _Observational selection: Looking at only positive evidence while ignoring the negative._ > You only see the fakers and ignoring the accounts given of serious mediums. Oh huge hairy bollocks Henry! Please go and look up something called Burden Of Proof. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/151 "2014-10-09T18:50:54Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > That’s not evidence. That’s wishful thinking. I didn’t come to that conclusion. In fact, I came to the exact opposite conclusion - she’s knowingly faking it for money and fame. So we’re back to square one. By what criteria did you reason that she’s not capable of faking that? It seems pretty easy to me. Years of practice backed up by tons of notes that she never deviated from. Would you like direct evidence that “Seth” spouted pseudoscientific bullshit? This is from my copy of Roberts 1970 _The Seth Material_, in which her ghostest with the mostest says > [@](#): > > Thoughts and images are formed into physical reality and become physical fact. They are propelled chemically. A thought is energy. It begins to produce itself physically at the moment of its conception. > Mental enzymes are connected with the pineal gland. As you know them, body chemicals are physical, but they are the propellants of this thought-energy, containing all the codified data necessary for translating any thought or image into physical actuality. They cause the body to reproduce the inner image. They are sparks, so to speak, initiating the transformation. > Chemicals are released through the skin and pore systems, in an invisible but definite pseudophysical formation. The intensity of a thought or image largely determines the immediacy of its physical materialization. There is no object about you that you have not created. There is nothing about your own physical image that you have not made. > The initial thought or image exists within the mental enclosure. It is not yet physical. Then it is sparked into physical materialization by the mental enzymes. Did you know what I had to go through to find this bit of claptrap? I just let the book fall open. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/152 "2014-10-09T18:53:12Z")
> [@HenryH](#): > > For the millionth time the material transmitted is not the issue here. I myself think a lot of it, possibly all, is bogus. Its whether or not the channeling is real is the issue. For fuck’s sake, how the hell are we to determine if channeling is real or not if you don’t let us examine what it produces?? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/153 "2014-10-09T18:56:16Z")
> [@HenryH](#): > > For the millionth time the material transmitted is not the issue here. I myself think a lot of it, possibly all, is bogus. Its whether or not the channeling is real is the issue. > Have you watched the videos also? If so then fair enough. We all see what we want to see, this as much as it applies to me applies to you also. If the material being “channeled” is bogus, why do you need a “real” mechanism to explain it? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/154 "2014-10-09T18:56:49Z")
> [@HenryH](#): > > For the millionth time the material transmitted is not the issue here. I myself think a lot of it, possibly all, is bogus. Its whether or not the channeling is real is the issue. \*\*If you ignore the material transmitted you have NOTHING. \*\*It’s the only reason channeling exist; it’s the definition of channeling. Do you understand that? It could just as easily be hypnotic mushrooms transmitting info directly into your ears, but there’s no way to examine that without looking at the information. If the information isn’t the issue, why do you care if the channelers are bogus? What could it possibly matter? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/155 "2014-10-09T18:57:18Z")
> [@](#): > > …There is no object about you that you have not created… \…\…\… ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/156 "2014-10-09T19:08:07Z")
Just looked up Mrs. Roberts in [this](http://www.brill.com/dictionary-gnosis-western-esotericism) (serious, scholarly) dictionary. Apparently she left behind a whole lot of private journals, all “now at Yale University, Sterling Memorial Library, ms. group nr. 1090.” Very few of them, it seems, have been studied by serious, unbiased scholars or biographers, so really we know very little of her private thinking. The last bit of her entry is worth quoting in full, I think: > [@](#): > > Detailed analysis of the literature of the New Age movement shows that its basic ideas are modeled after Seth’s worldview to such a degree […] that, without exaggeration, Jane Roberts should be recognized as one of the major religious innovators in Western society after World War II. Given her pivotal role in creating the foundations of a comprehensive belief system now widely diffused through Western popular culture, she has been surprisingly neglected by scholars of Western esotericism and of new religious movements. A major critical monograph is long overdue. Maybe a job for you, eh, **HenryH**? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/157 "2014-10-09T19:22:17Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > Just looked up Mrs. Roberts in [this](http://www.brill.com/dictionary-gnosis-western-esotericism) (serious, scholarly) dictionary. Title of said dictionary being “Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism”, which boasts of being selected “Choice Outstanding Academic Title in 2006” but completely neglects to mention what agency made this selection. By the way, there is no woo this “dictionary” doesn’t praise to the heavens-don’t look to it for any serious criticism. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/158 "2014-10-09T19:56:35Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > Just looked up Mrs. Roberts in [this](http://www.brill.com/dictionary-gnosis-western-esotericism) (serious, scholarly) dictionary. > > Apparently she left behind a whole lot of private journals, all “now at Yale University, Sterling Memorial Library, ms. group nr. 1090.” Very few of them, it seems, have been studied by serious, unbiased scholars or biographers, so really we know very little of her private thinking. > > The last bit of her entry is worth quoting in full, I think: Who wrote that entry? ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/159 "2014-10-09T20:02:05Z")
> [@HenryH](#): > > Again the mediums can’t be proven to be genuine. Wait…WHY can’t mediums be proven to be genuine? As I said before, IF any of these people were real, it would be TRIVIALLY SIMPLE to prove it. Depending on what, exactly, the channeler claims is happening, any scientist could come up with a dozen tests off the top of their head that would allow them to prove conclusively that they were for real. Science is a method of investigation. It could very very easily be applied to these cases, IF the medium is willing to be tested. So I ask again, why has no one done this? ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2014, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710/160 "2014-10-09T20:48:11Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Title of said dictionary being “Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism”, which boasts of being selected “Choice Outstanding Academic Title in 2006” but completely neglects to mention what agency made this selection. By the way, there is no woo this “dictionary” doesn’t praise to the heavens-don’t look to it for any serious criticism. Bullshit. If you mean to attack the scholarly work of people like Antoine Faivre, Olav Hammer, Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke and other contributors to the dictionary, you’re going to have to do better than that. Bring arguments. Give examples. Exert yourself. To make it easy for you: Bring us _just a single example_, from _any_ of the dictionary’s many, many entries, making the claim that any given bit of woo is a genuinely divine revelation, i.e. the real deal, handed down from a heavenly source. I’ll wait. Oh, and the agency behind the “Choice Outstanding Academic Title in 2006”? It’s right there in the name: [Choice](http://www.ala.org/acrl/choice/home), considered “[the premier source for reviews of academic books, electronic media, and Internet resources of interest to those in higher education](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice:_Current_Reviews_for_Academic_Libraries).” It is published by [the American Library Association](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Library_Association), as honourable, unbiased and uncontroversial institution as you’ll ever find. More [here](http://www.goodreads.com/award/show/10117-choice-magazine-choice-outstanding-academic-title): > [@](#): > > Every year in the January issue, Choice publishes a list of Outstanding Academic Titles that were reviewed during the previous calendar year. This prestigious list reflects the best in scholarly titles reviewed by Choice and brings with it the extraordinary recognition of the academic library community. > > The list is quite selective: it contains approximately ten percent of some 7,000 works reviewed in Choice each year. Choice editors base their selections on the reviewer’s evaluation of the work, the editor’s knowledge of the field, and the reviewer’s record. […] In awarding Outstanding Academic Titles, the editors apply several criteria to reviewed titles: > > - overall excellence in presentation and scholarship > - importance relative to other literature in the field > - distinction as a first treatment of a given subject in book or electronic form > - originality or uniqueness of treatment > - value to undergraduate students > - importance in building undergraduate library collections Twenty seconds on Google would have revealed this very information. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Who wrote that entry? Wouter Hanegraaff, professor of History of Hermetic Philosophy and related currents at the University of Amsterdam, a member of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences, and former president of the Dutch Society for the Study of Religion, as well as of the European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism. If you have any serious criticism to level against the man’s arguments, or his overall reputation as a scholar, by all means fire away. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/channeled-material/700710.md?page=9)