Hey everyone,

In my latest research into the field of parapsychology, I've come across the idea of super psi. Super psi is the idea that phenomena, such as mediumship, are an incredibly elaborate illusion set up by the subconscious psychic abilities present in both the medium and the person requesting the reading. During a reading, the medium has the capability to piece together an incredibly convincing narrative by reading the minds of not only the person involved, but every living person simultaneously, all the while fooling both the medium and the person involved into thinking contact is being made with a discarnate entity via an almost identical portrayal by the medium's subconscious mind. Some proponents of this hypothesis also claim that the medium's abilities transcend time and space in order to collect even more information for the narrative, all the while convinced he or she is making actual spiritual contact. What are your thoughts on this hypothesis?

Who cares if it is contact with a being on the other side or the result of subconcious psychic abilities? Either way, there is alot going on that is a resource we have not tapped into to use fully yet. Which is a more stupendous hypothesis: that there is conciousness on the other side or that we have great psychic potential because on the subconcious level we are interconnected?  Neither model fits in with contemporary scientific models we use in everyday life. Both rock the boat, so to speak.

Neither is easily testable, so it doesn't matter anyway.

Although I believe that people can access the underlying interconnectivity which holds all of our "beingness" together in a way similar to what you describe, that particular viewpoint seems to be an oversimplification of what is happening when mediums are successful. With such a limited argument one cannot explain all that happens with people's near death experiences, nor their other methods of communication with the departed (who are still near us). There are quite a few ways in which people communicate with spirits and mediumship is only one of them.

Those who do deep meditation are quite aware that a "timeless" realm of unification of all being does exist. It can be experienced by ordinary people. It is an ability we all possess, even if we are unaware of doing it.

Lucy wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 5:53am:

Who cares if it is contact with a being on the other side or the result of subconcious psychic abilities? Either way, there is alot going on that is a resource we have not tapped into to use fully yet. Which is a more stupendous hypothesis: that there is conciousness on the other side or that we have great psychic potential because on the subconcious level we are interconnected?  Neither model fits in with contemporary scientific models we use in everyday life. Both rock the boat, so to speak. Neither is easily testable, so it doesn't matter anyway.

I can see what you mean, but I just don't see super psi as a rational alternative to survival.  Some of the cases of mediumship take super psi to a level where its practically omnipotent and omniscient, all to discredit the possibility that there is a single discarnate source of information in the form of a dead person. Proponents rightly argue that the survival theory presupposes a certain degree of psi, but it is nothing compared to the degree needed in order to rule out the dead contact completely. The biggest problems with the entire super psi hypothesis, in my opinion, are that it is unfalsifiable, it becomes extremely complicated in order to explain phenomena that is more easily explained by the survival hypothesis, and its built upon the fact that we currently don't know the limits of psi, but based on the data collected in the lab, its fairly weak and certainly not powerful enough to do what super psi asks of it. Also, super psi has little to no way of explaining OBEs and NDEs other than supposing that they are incredibly elaborate hallucinations.

A really interesting question which the Windbridge Institute tried to address by looking at how mediums experience the information they get. The gist seems to be that many mediums experience the information gleaned from a supposed discarnate differently from passive psychic information (such as from an inanimate object); specifically the important bit seems to be the intention behind the information provided by the deceased usually with a distinct personality/motivation apparent. Often information may be given which is unexpected or needs later confirmation counting against simple mind reading. The problem for me with super-psi is that expands as a theory to become a 'cover-all' explanation almost as an anything but survival bias when it would seem that survival is the more parsimonious explanation. From a strictly scientific perspective however the jury is still out.

heisenberg69 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 1:03pm:

A really interesting question which the Windbridge Institute tried to address by looking at how mediums experience the information they get. The gist seems to be that many mediums experience the information gleaned from a supposed discarnate differently from passive psychic information (such as from an inanimate object); specifically the important bit seems to be the intention behind the information provided by the deceased usually with a distinct personality/motivation apparent. Often information may be given which is unexpected or needs later confirmation counting against simple mind reading. The problem for me with super-psi is that expands as a theory to become a 'cover-all' explanation almost as an anything but survival bias when it would seem that survival is the more parsimonious explanation. From a strictly scientific perspective however the jury is still out.

I agree, and that is the problem with the super psi hypothesis: it can't be falsified. If there are no parameters through which a hypothesis can be tested, how useful is it? If practically all of the empirical data supporting it also supports a more parsimonious hypothesis that can also explain more phenomena (NDEs and OBEs) in the process, I can't see why one would continue to hold on to a hypothesis that becomes more and more bloated as more data is presented.

Yvvak wrote on Jul 12^th, 2014 at 1:24pm:

heisenberg69 wrote on Jul 12th, 2014 at 1:03pm: A really interesting question which the Windbridge Institute tried to address by looking at how mediums experience the information they get. The gist seems to be that many mediums experience the information gleaned from a supposed discarnate differently from passive psychic information (such as from an inanimate object); specifically the important bit seems to be the intention behind the information provided by the deceased usually with a distinct personality/motivation apparent. Often information may be given which is unexpected or needs later confirmation counting against simple mind reading. The problem for me with super-psi is that expands as a theory to become a 'cover-all' explanation almost as an anything but survival bias when it would seem that survival is the more parsimonious explanation. From a strictly scientific perspective however the jury is still out. I agree, and that is the problem with the super psi hypothesis: it can't be falsified. If there are no parameters through which a hypothesis can be tested, how useful is it? If practically all of the empirical data supporting it also supports a more parsimonious hypothesis that can also explain more phenomena (NDEs and OBEs) in the process, I can't see why one would continue to hold on to a hypothesis that becomes more and more bloated as more data is presented.

Very true. But of course 'super psi' is not an explanation mainstream scientists can give because they don't accept telepathy, precognition etc.! My view is that when those phenomena  are conventionally  accepted an important Rubicon has been crossed - i.e. the acceptance of non-materiality and the possibility of consciousness beyond the physical brain.

Yvvak wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 4:48pm:

During a reading, the medium has the capability to piece together an incredibly convincing narrative by reading the minds of not only the person involved, but every living person simultaneously,

Absolutely hilarious!  Not so many years ago scientists said that Mental Telepathy was impossible.  They adamantly stated that any claim that Mental Telepathy (mind to mind communication) existed was made either by someone involved in fraud or was the product of mental delusion!

Then sufficient controlled experimentation scientifically proved the existence of telepathic communication.  So, now scientists attempt to explain away communication with the deceased by claiming it is merely mental telepathy with the living.

Some scientists are just more willing to rely on their BELIEFS than they are willing to do the experiments. 

A theory is:

an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

I would suggest to those "scientists" design experiments to test their theory, run the experiments, and attempt to prove their theory.

Until they can do that their theory is every bit as viable as the one some folks still hold that claims the earth is flat.

Thanks for brightening my day with a good laugh.

Bruce

Bruce Moen wrote on Jul 16^th, 2014 at 2:11pm:

Yvvak wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 4:48pm: During a reading, the medium has the capability to piece together an incredibly convincing narrative by reading the minds of not only the person involved, but every living person simultaneously,  Absolutely hilarious!  Not so many years ago scientists said that Mental Telepathy was impossible.  They adamantly stated that any claim that Mental Telepathy (mind to mind communication) existed was made either by someone involved in fraud or was the product of mental delusion! Then sufficient controlled experimentation scientifically proved the existence of telepathic communication.  So, now scientists attempt to explain away communication with the deceased by claiming it is merely mental telepathy with the living. Some scientists are just more willing to rely on their BELIEFS than they are willing to do the experiments.  A theory is: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true I would suggest to those "scientists" design experiments to test their theory, run the experiments, and attempt to prove their theory. Until they can do that their theory is every bit as viable as the one some folks still hold that claims the earth is flat. Thanks for brightening my day with a good laugh. Bruce

Hi Bruce!

Some scientists would still say psi is impossible, and the results in favor of it are subject to fraud or misinterpretation, but I feel this is more or less a defense mechanism meant to discredit the findings on something that simply has no place within the current paradigm. In regards to super psi, I share your attitude towards it, but I thought it would be an interesting topic to ponder, considering it is one of only a few hypotheses that most parapsychologists acknowledge in order to explain the data they've collected.

I think its fair to say that the prestigious 'blue chip' peer-reviewed journals such as Nature and Scientific American don't support psi and so consequently many (most?) scientists don't think there is any decent evidence for psi in a kind of 'chicken and egg' way. This is not because there is no decent evidence but rather because the work that has been done is filtered out or deemed (erroneously) as not robust enough.It is left to less celebrated titles such as the Journal of Scientific Exploration to try to address the inbalance.

Thomas Campbell seems to be Kathy's favorite astral adept. He is the author of " My Big Toe" and was a NASA scientist and engineering consultant at TMI.  He claims that deceased loved ones who appear in NDEs and provide paranormal verification of their identity are in fact illusory.  The information gathered is in fact gleaned from universal consciousness via Super-Psi.  If his claim is correct, this has profound implications for the question of whether mediums can contact surviving discarnate spirits.   

This issue goes back for eons in some ways, and was best put forward by Descartes centuries ago.  If everything is illusory and there is a super psi phenomenon, then what is real, and do I, as an individual point of consciousness even exist at all?  The answer to Descartes was clear.  Even if there were a deception at play, he could not get around the fact that he was there, at his most basic core/being thinking.  I think, therefore, I am. 

Now we have to ask ourselves, is thought the product of physical reality, or does it transcend the physical world.  If thought is primary (consciousness), then why would my individual thought and will be obliterated at my physical death?  If thought and consciousness is independent of physicality, then why would communication with a discarnate consciousness have to be illusory?  It would only be so if that consciousness/loved one had moved on and was unavailable or unconcerned with making contact. 

To say that consciousness is just a huge database of information, removes the possibility of directed thought, intention and spirit from the equation.  What is the purpose of the illusion?  Purpose is a sign of intelligence, higher thought; consciousness is not just a huge database. 

What if we are all part of this universal consciousness?  What if we simply wall our awareness off into a cocoon of individuality in this world?  Then when we shed our body, we come into a greater awareness and perception of things.  We want to see our deceased loved ones.  And by thinking about them, we bring them to us.  But in the mental plane of thought, and in that interconnectedness, it is wrong to say they are merely illusory projections of our dead loved ones.  Because the individuated consciousness that they are did pass over, and join the whole. 

Are these contacts genuine or illusory?  How do we know?  To speak with those who have experienced the encounter, they "just know".  They feel the love, the connection, and sometimes, get information that only their loved one could have known.  Is it just accessing a database?  I don't believe a database could give the encounters described; described as being "more real" than physical reality somehow. 

In the end, Descartes couldn't disprove any hypothesis for trickery, so he was left with his own thought.  Even if deceived, he found that at the most fundamental level, there was Descartes the thinker, producing his own thoughts.  I think, therefore, I am.


M

Take the case documented in "Heaven is for Real," now a movie.  At age 4 Colton Burpo has an NDE in conjunction with ruptured appendix.  He tells his Mom that he met his sister in heaven.  Sis hugs him and tells him she died in her Mom's tummy.  Colton's Mom never disclosed that to her young child.  Sis tells Colton that she has no name because her parents never gave her one.

Colton claims to have met his Dad Todd's grandpa in heaven.  Grandpa reveals secrets to Colton about his Dad that his parents had never disclosed.  Colton's parents   show him a photo of the grandpa as an old man with glasses.  Colton can't recognize him and observes that no one wears glasses in heaven and no one is old.  When he is shown a family picture of the grandpa as a young man, Colton at once recognizes him as the man he stayed with in heaven.  Can all of this really be an illusion created by Super-Pai?   

Don,

The problem with Super Psi, is that it is a catch phrase for universal knowledge about everything, and as such, is non-falsifiable.   What test would definitively distinguish between Super Psi, and real contact with individual people?  For those who believe in the powers of Super Psi, the refrain would be "well Super Psi can do anything."  Well alrighty then.  Game over; not much to say if you start with that definition of Super Psi.

For myself, the difference would lie in thought and intent.  A universal database of knowledge might have the answers  (data) within it, but should not have thought, intent an purpose behind it. 

Conscious thought and intent speaks to an intelligence, which must, by nature, be different than a universal database.  The emotion of love, likewise speaks to a living consciousness which can not simply be downloaded as "1s" and "0s". 

DocM,

Well, the standard philosophical rebuttal to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" is this: There can be thoughts of the thinker without there being the thinker himself."  So if I'm greeted by Uncle Pete in an NDE, the Super-psi theory assumes that Uncle Peter plays no role in our contact.  Instead, I contact a simulation of an absent Uncle Pete--a thought form without the thinker.

Don,

How was the thought form of Uncle Pete created?

Can you explain the theory of how a thought may come into existence without a thinker, and perhaps provide another example.


crossbow

Berserk2 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2014 at 11:03pm:

DocM, Well, the standard philosophical rebuttal to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" is this: There can be thoughts of the thinker without there being the thinker himself."  So if I'm greeted by Uncle Pete in an NDE, the Super-psi theory assumes that Uncle Peter plays no role in our contact.  Instead, I contact a simulation of an absent Uncle Pete--a thought form without the thinker.

But who is perceiving the simulation of Uncle Peter, doesn't that require a thinker? Sounds like solipsism; the idea that only oneself exists. Also, if as Popper claims, all theories need to be falsifiable to qualify as such and Doc is right that super-psi isn't testable; then it doesn't make it as a theory!

It can become maddening if we question every experience as being potentially illusory.  Am I really conversing with Don?  Does "Don" exist right now, or is my entire world, here in physical reality, a world of illusion? 

I can only account for my own thought.  I can not prove the existence of another because I rely on information for verification of the "reality" of the other.  Input from my five senses.  A meaningful exchange of ideas and information.  And emotions or feelings interacting with others evokes.  Yet ultimately, the entire experience lies within my own consciousness, and one could postulate a scenario where my every interaction with someone other than myself is merely illusory or false.  The five senses can be tricked or simulated. 

I choose not to go in that direction (questioning the reality of others) because I see it as an ultimately unwinnable.  How do you "know" when you have contact with others that is "real?"  You just know.  We all, to one extent or another define our own reality.

M

Hi Don,

Actually I'm my favorite astral adept!  Certainly we can learn from other's knowledge and experience, but not much tops having your own experience.

I believe TC indicates there are numerous possibilities.  One is as you mentioned, gleaning information from a "database" of information or super-psi.  Another is actual contact with the deceased or contact with a "helper/guide" that gleans information and essentially "feeds" data to you such as a data stream, which can include visuals.  If this is true, then of course, it's not all super-psi.  To me, the main question is how does one tell the difference?  I think each instance of contact can be examined for the most likely answer, still, I'm not sure we can always discern the difference even with our own experiences, much less from the experiences of others.

A couple of my grandkids like to watch game shows and they are always amazed at how many questions I can get right, so this summer I've been showing them how to access information that you have no previous "conscious" knowledge of.  It's been a fun way to teach the kids how to use their God given abilities to access universal knowledge, which can have some obvious differences from actual contact with another being.

One can access information through super-psi and receive the information in a visual form, such as seeing Uncle Pete.  In this case one would receive information about Uncle Pete's history and/or future probabilities or perhaps even Uncle Pete's actualized present moment, however, Uncle Pete would not possess free will choice if the information were coming from a database of universal knowledge.  The tricky part for discernment is that Uncle Pete could act just like Uncle Pete and unless you knew every detail about Uncle Pete's life, it would difficult to tell if Uncle Pete were acting with free will choice or if you were simply viewing an aspect of Uncle Pete's life.

The non-physical is teaming with life and at least in my experience the majority of contacts where two-way communication has taken place, other beings when visual to me, have appeared as radiant beacons of light that emanate the most beautiful feelings of awe and love. Is this a common way for beings/helpers/guides to appear? I don't know.  That's simply been my experience.  I've also had communication with another that was unseen, but heard and felt just the same.  Someone else may have actual contact and communicate freely with another individual and perceive that being differently.  As Matthew mentioned, we all create our own reality to a certain extent based on our personal knowledge, understanding, beliefs, fears, etc., but I also think other beings, at least in the non-physical can create a reality for us if need be, or we, from a higher level of being can manifest a reality and experience it at the same time.  btw... great posts Matthew!

K

Relevent to this discussion I am currently reading Julie Beischel's new book 'From the Mouths of Mediums'. In it dialogues with Certified Windbridge Mediums (that is mediums who have been found to be accurate under controlled lab conditions, eliminating 'cold reading' etc.) addresses an understudied area; that is how mediums experience their purported contact with the departed. From reading these accounts it is clear (to me at least) that they experience discarnate contact very differently to how they receive 'psi' information and many know the difference. Doc hit the nail on the head when he mentioned intent and purpose of the contact as being the difference.

Super-psi seems like a new aspect of humanism--it's very centered on human brain's or mind's abilities.  If someone wants to create a new name for their new perception of psi, fine and good, but we needn't accept it as an ultimate truth or deceit.

A contrasting view of psi is that it is our name for the trails of consciousness each life leaves, trails that are accessible to all who can focus upon them. Unfortunately each of us humans has limited focus. Some names for those limited ranges of information that can be gleaned from psi are spiritism, ESP, NDE, etc. Most perceivers of psi get so caught up in their early experiences of a limited range that they do not go on to explore or study other areas or frequencies of psi.

An Ultimate Source of the infinitely ever-expanding psi-web has to be very glorious. We human individuals are just little blips sometimes following some major strands, sometimes creating our own micro-areas of netting. Or so says my limited Interpreter (-: