Indeed. And remember: when channeling, always wear eye protection. Hot chips of material will be flying at you and you must be careful.
Also ensure adequate lubrication.
If you’re looking for like-minded people on this site, they’re in very short supply.
I asked my pendulum, “do psychic powers solely exist in the minds of charlatans and the delusional?” It swung to “yes”.
Dude, you can’t even agree with yourself.
Ok appreciate the replies. Some quick responses…
I don’t think Cecil’s article mentioned talks about this specific issue - I agree with the article 100% btw.
Fair enough, I stand corrected, but still don’t think money making was the goal for those two cases, based on the material itself. I don’t think the people involved are lying basically but can’t prove this.
Yes I regret accusing anyone of having closed minds and take it back. I’m not dogmatically attached to this though - hence the post and the seek for more insights on the matter.
Great - an informative reply! I didn’t know about this.
Yes I know and agree and have my doubts about the information produced as I stated earlier.
This is exactly what I’m doing that’s why I ended up here.
Not true according to rationalwiki anyways: “The ideomotor effect has been well documented; however, it still remains an effect that is largely unknown to most people, including scientists.”
Ok, so your guys view would be then that this is all due to the ideomotor effect forwarding information from one’s subconscious?
If one can accept (even hypothetically for now) that some of these channelers are not faking what is happening to them, could the ideomotor effect be expanded to explain complete control of the body, vocal cords, facial expressions to end produce verbal output, again all streaming from the subconscious?
No, but the answer’s just about as simple, they’re lying, crazy or deluded.
In any case, best to avoid contact.
I don’t believe channeling has any merit what so ever. I do believe that at some level humans involuntarily communicate via telepathic methods. This is just based on hard to explain experiences that seem to crop up more often that odds would allow for.
Things like getting ready to call someone you haven't spoken to in 20 or more years and suddenly the phone rings and it is them. Or we start thinking of someone we haven't ever given much thought to and find out they were recently diagnosed with cancer or have just passed away. A very common one is where you SO answers you as if you were talking and you were only deep in thought about something. This really spooks me when I am thinking about something I seldom ever think about and never talk about.
My spookiest one was the night Natalie Wood died, I had a dream she was involved in a violent arguement with doors slamming in small cabin like rooms. I was telling my wife about the dream before I got up and then we turned the news on with our coffee and they announced she had drowned. My now ex wife is still freaked about that one.
I hear similar things from a lot of people.
Oh, brother.
Look, let’s put it this way: if ANY of these people were genuine, it would be ridiculously simple to prove it scientifically beyond any shadow of a doubt. I could make up a list of 20 questions that could only be answered correctly through magical powers and go from there.
The fact that not a single solitary one of these people has done such a proof should be the only argument necessary.
No, the ideomotor effect explains how small subconscious motions are amplified by certain setups to produce what looks like directed movement.
The rest of the stuff (changed voice, facial expressions, body language etc) is simply acting, whether on purpose or through delusion. This isn’t hard to do, regardless of your motivations.
You can’t prove or disprove someone is acting, but they never produce any information they couldn’t have learned in another fashion so the onus is on them to show anything special. So far the folks who are channeling alien spirits are batting .000 in that respect.
Isn’t this all just confirmation bias though? You don’t remember or talk about all the other weird dreams that didn’t link up to anything in the real world, and all those times when you’re thinking about someone and they don’t phone, aren’t notable or memorable.
So there is definitely no way that the channeling can be caused by the ideomotor effect then? Do all agree on this?
Despite all posts here I’m still convinced (some of) the channelers are not faking but instead it is the information being channelled that is false or unverifiable. The ideomotor is a nice idea for further investigation, but if this can’t explain actual voice then alas I’ve hit another dead end it seems.
Could you just give us what you consider to be the best single piece of evidence that channeling is real?
HenryH, you might want to do some reading on the history of channeling.
In fact you might like Michael Tymn Explores the Forgotten History of Psychic Mediums. Tymn is at least a semi-believer but he’s knowledgeable about the history of the movement. He makes an important point by putting its modern development in the decade after Darwinism caused a crisis of faith.
Many people want - need - to believe that there is an afterlife. Ghosts, channeling, spirits, messages, anything that can convince them that death is not simply an endless black void, will be seized upon and fiercely defended.
Tymn actually sounds more like a skeptic at the beginning as he examines the phenomenon but gradually trots out his beliefs. Unfortunately, these take the form of thinking that the spirits no longer appear as often as they did in the 19th century because the frauds and skeptics annoyed them. Personally, I’d say that such rationalization is death. No outsider could be anything but hysterical at such a pitiful defense. Even so, a friendly historian may get to you better than our wall of disbelief.
“They’re faking it” seems like a much simpler and more realistic solution than “they are channeling information via magic or some other supernatural method”. Without any actual evidence that they’re not faking it, why would you think it’s real?
To be fair, our new friend did say “closed-minded.” Let’s not chide him for a grammar mistake that he didn’t even make.
You’re getting two different things mixed up. The ideomotor effect explains your pendulum demonstration. Nothing to do with channeling.
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.
The material in the books is quite amazing also in itself, but I think that is off topic at the moment, as we are talking more about whether the channelling process itself is being faked as opposed to the material being false.
And on top of all that you could read some of Jane Roberts own non-Seth books to compare her own personality and writing with that of the channelled material itself, and actually find funny enough that it comes up lacking a bit in style and depth.
All channeled information to date has been one of the following:
[ol]
[li]False[/li][li]Easily obtainable through other means[/li][li]Unverifiable[/li][/ol]
Notice, “true and only available through external knowledge” isn’t on the list. Come up with one single of occurrence of that (or at least a good candidate) and people will take the phenomenon more seriously.
Anyone can fake false or unverifiable information - even if it was through supernatural means, why should I care? It’s not useful or interesting.
I disagree somewhat. I see a definite progression from pendulum usage to automatic writing / ouija boards / table dancing to channelling. Its all about the muscles in the body being controlled in a coherent manner by something that is not the user’s concious mind.
Possibly anyhow. You may be right, and there may be no connection. But I think it is debatable.
Yes, and I agree, but I am not talking about the information received, but about the channelling itself. The information being fake and the channellers faking are two very very different things.
It is hopeless talking to someone who believes this and hopeless that someone who believes that can expect to convince others.